Catholicism

This particular chapter was written in order to list the reasons why we renounced The Roman Catholic Church. It's not our intention to condemn Catholic individuals; nor Catholic people per se, nor to express hatred for any of them in particular. However, due to the gravity of eternal destinies like Heaven and Hell; the gloves have got to come off; viz: there is just no way we can word our reasons in such a way as to completely avoid hurting somebody's feelings without compromising our own integrity.

§. Gal 1:10 ...Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Joanne and I aren't especially highly qualified to critique Catholicism. We're just two ex Catholic pew warmers responding in a similar fashion to the way that Kevin McCarthy's character, Dr. Miles Bennell— in the 1956 movie; Invasion Of The Body Snatchers —responded upon discovering the horrifying truth about otherwise innocuous-looking pods. We feel compelled to warn people before they become assimilated into the Borg-hive collective of a religion that we know for our own selves is a glamorous Judas goat, leading many thousands of unsuspecting souls to a terrible doom.

It's our personal ambition to comply with our savior's wishes at Mark 16:15 to the best of our abilities; and we believe that the most effective way to fulfill that obligation is to utilize our experience, and our online access, to expose Catholicism's fatal errors to as large a public as possible. We truly believe that is what God rescued each of us towards, and we are determined to fulfill our destiny so that some day we can hear our savior say, in all honesty and good conscience; "Well done thou good and faithful servant."

Joanne and I had no say in our choice of religion. Our parents imposed their own belief system on us as kids. Subsequently, we were baptized as infants into the Roman Catholic Church; forced to attend catechism, and went on to complete First Holy Communion and Confirmation. Because of my parents financial situation, and problems associated with transportation, I did only one year in parochial high school. Joanne went to parochial schools for twelve years. I have an older brother (whom I have neither seen nor heard from since 1961) who entered the priesthood, and Joanne's older sister was a nun for a few years.

I was loyal to Rome and its teachings up until I was a little over 24 years old; and then in 1968 the Holy Bible opened my eyes to some reality checks; and one of those checks is that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible; nor does it always agree with the Christ of the New Testament.

I was faced with a grave decision: do I stifle my own better judgment, marginalize the Bible and the Christ of the New Testament, and follow Rome without question; or do I yield to my own better judgment and marginalize Rome in favor of the Bible and the Christ of the New Testament. I chose to marginalize Rome. That was over 42 years ago as of the date of this revision, and in all that time I have not had one single pang of conscience nor feelings of regret for my decision. In point of fact, the more I studied the Bible, and the more I studied the testimony of the New Testament's Christ; the more disillusioned I became with Rome.

The New Testament's Jesus was a Jewish man, born in the land of Israel of a Jewish woman, and raised by Jewish parents in an orthodox Jewish home; and was, by virtue of his genetics and his ritual circumcision, obligated to comply with every last point of Old Testament Judaism. When Jesus was here, the religion that he believed, that he taught, and that he practiced was Old Testament Judaism. In point of fact, Jesus is the only Jew in the history of Israel who never broke a single one of the Old Testament's religious laws. But the Jewish elite of his own day believed, taught, and practiced a rabbinical form of Judaism that was so far removed from genuine Old Testament Judaism, that when his countrymen heard Jesus' teachings, they actually thought he was trying to propagate a new belief system; and they truly believed that he grossly violated the Sabbath.

What I find to be absolutely fascinating in modern times is that large numbers of professing Christians of all denominations— not just Catholicism —are so far removed from New Testament Christianity that when they're exposed to it, they're unable to recognize it as such. An overwhelming majority of Christians today comprise an essentially apostate church, and they look upon the real church as a cuckoo bird: sometimes even regarding its teachings as something akin to Mormonism where Mormon men are expecting to become Gods in their own right some day. But although I find that fascinating; it really comes as no surprise because the apostle Paul predicted that professing Christians would, in time, depart from the original and follow fantasy and myths; and they would do that because fantasy and myths are far more appealing than the real thing.

§. 2Tim 4:2-4 …Preach the word of God. Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching. For a time is coming when they will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear. They will reject the truth and follow strange myths.

Paul wasn't talking about the world at large in that passage; no, he was talking about Christians who, even in the depths of apostasy, profess to follow the teachings, beliefs, and practices of the New Testament's Jesus, and they were already operative while the apostles were still here (e.g. Gal 1:6-7, 2Pet 3:15-16).

§. 1Tim 4:1 …Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Paul's instructions to Timothy serve to emphasize why rejection of dogma is so essential to one's future safety.

The "latter times" have been going on now for some time, ever since the days of Jesus and the apostles.

§. Heb 1:1-2 ...In the past, God spoke to our [Jewish] forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,

§. 1Pet 1:20...He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

§. 1John 2:18 ...Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

It's our goal in this chapter to show that Catholic Christianity fulfills, to a large degree, Paul's predictions; and is so far removed from New Testament Christianity as to be essentially a completely different religion altogether.

It is always very difficult to discuss biblical Christianity with the average Catholic because many are so tightly bonded to Rome, so proudly identified with their religion, and so infected with a superiority complex stemming from a sort of master-race mentality, that they rarely receive the Holy Bible with joy and gratitude; au contraire, it isn't unusual for the average pew warmer to become defensive and indignant; reacting in a spirit of rivalry, hostility, and resentment when a non Catholic dares to insinuate their belief system is plastic, and that might actually be in grave danger of eternal suffering.

OBJECTION : But don't you think it's natural for people to get defensive when an important core value like their own personal religion is challenged?

Yes, it's natural; as all sins are; but defensiveness and religious hostility are not spiritual.

§. 2Tim 2:23-26 . .The Lord's servants must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone. They must be able to teach effectively and be patient with difficult people. They should gently teach those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people's hearts, and they will believe the truth. Then they will come to their senses and escape from the Devil's trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants.

OBJECTION : And so you blame the Church and not your parents for the pain you went through in childhood?

When people say "Church" I assume they mean the Roman Catholic Church— the theocratic monarchy reputed the world over for its cruelty, its wealth, its crusades and inquisitions, its treatment of Galileo, Copernicus, and the scientific community in general, its collusion with fascist Germany, its shameful disregard for the plight of Jesus' Jewish countrymen during WWII —the so-called seat of Christ that covered up decades of its own clergy's shameful sexual sins? Rome's credibility on any matter of eternal significance is in serious question.

§. Matt 7:15-20 . .Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

It has always been a mystery to us why so many Catholics assume that we are angry, or that we are suffering from abuse and psychological damage that is somehow related to our experience with Rome. Apparently, it is just too impossible for them to accept that any rational, objective person would renounce Rome for any other reason. I assure you our defection from Rome had nothing to do with angst and/or abuse. We are fully persuaded that Catholicism is a doctored version of the Christianity taught by the New Testament's Jesus and his apostles.

OBJECTION : But you annoy Catholics with non-Catholic teachings for which they have no interest.

All evangelism programs, including Rome's, would come to an immediate halt if people's feelings and interests were the primary concern. No, when Jesus commanded his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel everywhere to everybody, he did not predicate his command upon people's feelings, but specifically said that those who believe and are baptized will be spared, and the rest will be damned (Mark 16:15-16).

§. Gal 1:10 . .Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Try to understand it from our point of view. If you were passing by a burning apartment building late at night, would you consider it annoying to do all in your power to waken the occupants and alert them to the danger?

I truly believe that my savior rescued me from Catholicism not just to save my soul from Hell, but to return and preach "good new of great joy" to my ex fellow Catholics and to share with them not only how I was ransomed from the wrath of God, but also how provisions of the new covenant repaired the psychological damages that my abusive mother caused by 17½ years of mental and physical cruelty so I could go on to become an effective husband and a father, and to enjoy 30+ years of successful marriage, and raise a well adjusted son who graduated from University of Oregon in 2005 with a degree in journalism.

Jesus himself didn't go out into the whole world, but confined his operations largely within the borders of his own country and among his own Jewish countrymen, and it was his habit to visit his own religion's synagogues wherever he went. He didn't go into any of the Roman world's pagan shrines and preach to those people. No, he preached to people professing to believe and practice the very same religion that he professed to believe and practice; which was Old Testament Judaism; and in my own case, it's to people professing to believe the very same religion that I profess to believe and practice; which is New Testament Christianity.

OBJECTION : So then, it is you and your wife's wish to get a sort of commission on each sale, which will be applied towards a pearly-gates pass for yourself? The motive of the fundamental, evangelical Christian is always to save his own theological skin, not his victim's.

I have no clue where that category of objectors gets their information, but I can assure you that proselytizing would not serve to protect either our soul, or anybody else's soul, from criminal justice and eternal suffering.

§. Eph 2:8-9 . .God spared you by his kindness and generosity when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it's a gratuity from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.

§. 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. But now a righteousness from God, apart from commandments, has been made known, to which Judaism and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are pronounced innocent free of charge by his kindness and generosity through the ransom that came by Christ Jesus.

The right to dissent is an implied right guaranteed by the first Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The chief instruments of dissent are freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. Democratic theory proclaims that all people should be free to speak, write, publish, broadcast, assemble, demonstrate, picket, and organize on behalf of their beliefs, their opinions and their points of view. A necessary complement to these freedoms is the existence of many independent mass media of communication (e.g. newspapers, web sites, magazines, radio stations, and television networks) with the right to freely convey to the public news of social controversy as it occurs in our legislative bodies and in the community.

Religious organizations like the Roman Catholic Church can abridge the freedoms of speech protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution only if their membership voluntarily waives those freedoms and makes itself willing subjects to a despotic hierarchy.

The Vatican is a landlocked sovereign city-state whose territory consists of a walled enclave within the city of Rome in the country of Italy. As such, it sure as hell has no legitimate right whatsoever to silence criticism of its beliefs and practices here in the land of America.

As we said earlier, I was loyal to the Church and its teachings for 24+ years until the Holy Bible opened my eyes to some reality checks. I had to make a difficult decision. Do I marginalize the Holy Bible and retain my life-long identity as a Roman Catholic, or do I put 100% trust in the Holy Bible and marginalize my life-long identity as a Roman Catholic? I chose to put 100% trust in the Holy Bible and marginalize my life-long identity as a Roman Catholic. That was back in February of 1968, over forty-two years ago, and I have not had cause to regret my decision even once in all that time.

It just never seems to occur to die-hard Catholics that repentance may have played a major role in my decision. A common New Testament Greek word for repent is metanoeo (met-an-o-eh'-o); which means: to think differently, or to think about it afterwards; viz: to reconsider and change the mind. The opposite of repentance is backsliding. Let me explain what backsliding is just in case you're unfamiliar with ranching practices.

Cows are commonly transported to market via cattle trucks. To load cattle in the truck, ranchers construct sloped ramps for the cows to walk up. But sometimes you get a cow or two that doesn't want to go up the ramp into the truck. They'll start up the ramp, and then balk: planting their feet, and stiffening their front legs so you can't push them in. The more you push, the stiffer they set their legs to resist you; and an 800-1000 pound cow can really resist; especially when gravity's to their advantage! There's times when cows resist with such energy that they actually begin sliding back down the ramp instead of going on up ahead. So, sometimes you just have to give 'em the prod in order to get them going in the right direction.

§. Acts 26:13-16 . .And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect; Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.

Paul was fully identified with rabbinical Judaism and opposed Jesus with a fatal passion; but at the Lord's prodding, Saul dumped his identity to follow Jesus. Catholics are simply going to have to follow Saul's example if they wish to escape the wrath of God and eternal punishment. They are going to have to come down off their high horse and give up their pet religion just like Saul did— just like I did —and start following the Holy Bible's Jesus instead of following Rome's.

§. Mark 8:35-38 . .For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he arrives in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

You're going to run across Bible quotes that, at first glance, will seem incomplete and/or ripped out of context. This is no cause for alarm as it's a valid teaching method. If you're an astute student of the Bible, then you're already aware that New Testament authors, and even Jesus himself, often use Scripture clips to illustrate a point.

A critic once accused of us of conveniently leaving out the words "and truth" from John 6:63 in our discussion of the Eucharist; which insinuates that we deliberately manipulate the Bible to our advantage and suppress important information. But Jesus' comment "my words are spirit" is really all that we need for illustrating that he did not intend for either his disciples, nor anybody else, to literally dine upon his flesh and blood in order to obtain eternal life.

[Incidentally, our critic misquoted Jesus' testimony. What Jesus actually said in John 6:63 was "my words are spirit and life" rather than "and truth". Apparently our accuser's mind subconsciously combined John 6:63 with John 4:24.

There's an object lesson in that. Never risk quoting the Bible from memory when your quote will be in writing. It's far better to do so from an open Bible and/or copy and paste quotes directly from Bible software in order to avoid embarrassing errors.]

Occasionally, Catholics respond to our comments by saying: "Your exegesis of such-and-such passage is your own personal opinion and not much more" when the real problem is; they simply lack the skills and training necessary to refute our material. We've labeled people like that "obtuse" which is a pretty snazzy word to describe people who are just simply contrary; which Webster's defines as: temperamentally unwilling to accept control or advice. A contrary opponent isn't a person of reason and objectivity; but rather, an ignorant individual with an attitude.

The overwhelming bulk of the material on our Catholicism web page was accumulated from literally years of dialogue with Roman Catholics. The "objections" on this page were real-life objections from actual Catholics.

People's minds are very creative; with an especially annoying propensity to subconsciously revise our comments, and construe them to mean things that they don't say in writing. At least a portion of that particular problem is caused by scotoma: which, if you've seen The Davinci Code, you know is a subconsciously induced psychological blindness caused by the mind's propensity to disregard concepts that are incongruous with deep seated, preconceived notions. In other words; the mind automatically glosses over the obvious when the obvious doesn't harmonize with the mind's already in-place concepts. When data enters your head, the human mind begins an automatic, subconscious search for points of reference so it can process the data into a context that you can understand. Left to itself, the mind will automatically discard unfamiliar data rather than expend the energy to learn something new; which is exactly why learning something new takes effort.

§. Matt 6:23 . .If therefore the light that is in you be darkness, how extensive is that darkness!

§. Luke 11:35 . .Take heed therefore that the light which is in you be not darkness.

Scotoma often does its best work when we hear somebody say something that we just know can't possibly be true. So we think to ourselves; "I'm sure I heard him wrong. He must have meant........" and so our minds automatically revise the person's words in order to make them say something believable rather than unbelievable.

Subconsciously induced mental blindness is not an unusual mental activity. How many times have you looked right at something on a supermarket shelf and not seen it because the item didn't have a familiar label; or walked past an acquaintance without speaking simply because you weren't expecting to see them in that particular location?

An excellent example of scotoma happened to us during a discussion of the term "free gift".

§. Rev 22:17 . .The Spirit and the bride say, "Come" And let him who hears say, "Come" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

Our opponent, upon reading that verse, then asked us: Is their anything required on your part? Well . . I'm sure you can see right off that a free gift didn't really mean "free" in their thinking because they were conditioned to believe that anything one might obtain from God has to be earned, merited, and/or deserved. (Commercial advertising gimmicks certainly aren't any help with this problem. People are bombarded every day with give-aways that always have a catch. So to us here in capitalist America, free gifts always come with strings attached.) So we had to stop and deal with their scotoma and explain that a free gift in the Bible is a gratuity, which Webster's defines as: something given voluntarily and/or beyond obligation. In other words, the water of life is a token of good will from God's house to yours; with no strings attached and nothing asked in return.

When Christians go about trying to deserve eternal life, they insult the spirit of altruism; and are out of the gratuity range and into the category of a wage-earner. Wages are not something given voluntarily and/or beyond obligation. No, wages are something deserved. But eternal life is not something to be deserved. No, far from it: eternal life is something to simply accept.

§. John 3:16-17 . .For God so cared for the world that He donated His only son, so that everyone who relies upon him will not perish but have eternal life. God did not send His son into the world to condemn it, but to rescue it.

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

§. Eph 2:8-9 . .God spared you by His benevolence when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it's a gratuity from God. Salvation is not compensation for the good things we have done; so none of us can boast about it.

(Incidentally, we had to then go on and define the terms altruism, benevolence, and compensation as a precaution to circumvent any additional scotoma that might be lurking in their thinking)

Be especially on guard against word substitutions. For example; when you see words like many and/or most; don't substitute them with the word "all". It will just result in your getting the wrong idea and subsequently setting you up with false premises. I've lost count of the number of times people have challenged us with questions that were utterly non sequiturs because they were based upon easily avoidable false premises if only their minds weren't so prone to word substitutions.

Skimming is another poor way to absorb material. When it skims, the human mind runs ahead so fast that it can't help but fail to retain important details like, for example, the grammatical tense of verbs. That is an especially fatal error when studying Jesus' comments about the possession of eternal life. It's very important to comprehend that eternal life is a benefit to obtain from God in this life prior to leaving for the next. According to God's testimony as an expert witness, people without eternal life don't have His son; viz: they are quite christless and alienated from the New Testament's Jesus.

§. 1John 5:11-12 . .And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

Christless people not only don't have eternal life, no, they are unbelievers who neither listen to Jesus' message, nor trust in God; consequently they abide in death, and in grave danger of the wrath of God.

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

(Did you take time to note the tense of the verbs in those two passages before moving on?)

We cannot be held responsible for the way people choose to react to our comments, nor can we be blamed for the wrong impressions they take away with them. Impressions, like insults, are arbitrary; and often exist only in one's own mind. What one person might "feel" is an insult, may just simply be a matter of fact to another; and people are just quite naturally prone to getting the wrong impressions about things.

In order for a comment to be objectively condemned as an insult, there must first be demonstrated some evidence of intentional malice.

We highly recommend that everyone purchase and read Dr. Laura Schlessinger's book: The Proper Care And Feeding Of Husbands. Our detractors just might learn one or two useful things about abusing people with spurious accusations.

We're going to confront not only some of the official dogma of the Catholic Church, but also the personal beliefs of individual Catholics harboring some really strange religious concepts in their heads which at times go completely contrary to official dogma. Oddly, there are numbers of practicing Roman Catholics who are heretics and don't know it simply because childhood catechism was the last of their religious training.

§. Heb 5:11-6:3 . .There is so much more we would like to say about this. But you don't seem to listen, so it's hard to make you understand. You have been Christians a long time now, and you ought to be teaching others. Instead, you need someone to teach you again the basic things a beginner must learn about the Scriptures. You are like babies who drink only milk and cannot eat solid food. And a person who is living on milk isn't very far along in the Christian life and doesn't know much about righteousness. Solid food is for those who are mature, who have trained themselves to distinguish between good and evil. So let us stop going over the basics of Christianity again and again. Let us go on instead and become mature in our understanding. Surely we don't need to start all over again with the importance of turning away from evil deeds and placing our faith in God. You don't need further instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And so, God willing, we will move forward to advanced understanding.

For those Catholics whose religious education has been pretty much limited to early-childhood Catechism, we feel it's fair to forewarn they're in for not just a shock, but for many shocks as they're about to be introduced to some Bible information they never dreamed existed.

Expert Witnesses

Let's say you were called to jury duty where someone claiming to be a Christian was on trial to determine the validity of their claim. And lo and behold, Almighty God was called to the stand and sworn in as an expert witness.

An "expert witness" can be defined as: A witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of their expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder.

You would think that most Catholics would readily agree that when it comes to testing the validity of someone's claim to be a Christian, Almighty God would certainly be an unimpeachable expert witness. But no, it rarely works out that way; especially among Catholic jurors because it has been my own personal experience that they almost always, and with scant few exceptions, throw out God's testimony and lean upon Rome's instead. That is a very dumb thing to do.

§. 1John 5:9 . .We accept human testimony; but God's testimony carries more weight because it's the testimony of God

Okay; let's get up that ramp and onto the truck— and no backsliding! Don't be a stubborn cow and force God to poke your derriere with a prod.

The Roman Catholic Church has constructed for itself a papal tree showing its own succession all the way back to Peter. But man-made successions aren't reliable, and should never be trusted by serious students of The Holy Bible; because even while the apostles were still alive, even in their own day, there were professing Christians already breaking away and starting apostate movements (e.g. Gal 1:6-9, 1Tim 1:3-4, 2Tim 2:15-18, 1John 2:18-19, Jud 1:17-19). Those early apostates could easily show that their own hierarchical successions connected to Peter; who was actually just a few steps away. In fact, their distance from Peter was very short, shorter by more than 1,900 years than it is today. We believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the end product of some of those early apostates.

OBJECTION : That couldn't be because the purpose of those passages in the apostles' epistles was to expose the errors of the time so that people wouldn't follow the apostates.

The epistles weren't sent out to the world at large; like as if there were millions of copies run off the presses and shipped out to news stands, television stations, radio stations, and book stores in every city and country. No, the epistles were hand-written letters sent by courier only to designated recipients. The world at large didn't have a clue, nor would it have cared anyway even if it had access to those letters. Come on pal, get real. Just because those early apostates were "exposed", do you really think that stopped them from proliferating?

Let me tell you something. Apostate movements grow at astounding rates in spite of the now wide-spread availability of New Testaments. For example, Mormonism in the USA has grown from just one man in 1820 to 6,206,655 in 2008; and that figure doesn't even factor in the numbers of Mormons who have lived and died during the 178 years since the Mormon Church was founded. Those 6.21 million Mormons are those of today, not the past. Mormonism's belief system incorporates the New Testament, including every one of those epistles I referenced above. In point of fact, the Mormon Church offers free Bibles to anybody who requests one.

The Roman Catholic Church's fatal errors— as well as the WatchTower Society's and the Mormon Church's —have been exposed time and again by people far more competent than I for many, many years but die-hard Catholics just brush off the exposés and continue along their merry way like nothing ever happened. Everything bounces right off them like a sonar ping because the average pew warmer's beliefs, no matter how unreasonable nor how tenuous, are anchored in their unwavering confidence that the Roman Catholic Church is right even when it appears to be wrong.

It's been my own observation that die-hard Catholics will be perfectly content to go to Hell just so long as they get to go there as a loyal Catholic. You see, it's all in identity. Catholics are like proud, overconfident Yankee fans who no doubt still can't believe a team of historic losers like the Boston Red Sox could ever come from so far behind to crush their precious horsehide heroes in the 2004 World Series.

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

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

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

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

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

What is so ironic about Rome's past is that modern Catholics are constantly going on about Protestant schism while their own infallible papacy was so heatedly divided in the past.

Did you know that there was a time in Rome's past when not every infallible Pope agreed that Peter was the rock about which Jesus spoke in Matt. 16:18? Yes, it's true, and I just wish I had the details at my fingertips but unfortunately they're buried somewhere in the archives of my past activities on message boards.

Peter as the rock of Matt 16:18 has never been a revealed Roman doctrine, but rather a decided-upon doctrine, sort of like the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that made it through Congress recently for the President's signature. Not every congressman was happy with the Act (nor with its parasitic pork incentives) but nevertheless, it's now law, and like it or not, the whole country has to comply with it; and Roman Catholics today, are obligated to accept Peter as the rock of Matt 16:18 even though not all infallible Popes of the past agreed with that point of view.

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— e.g. Catholicism, Church Of Christ, Assemblies Of God, Lutheran, Methodist, and Seventh Day Adventist —announce a version of the good news 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 provide a guaranteed fail-safe, sin proof, commandment proof, God proof rescue from the wrath of God. Roman Catholicism, the very centerpiece and public image of Christianity, can't even guarantee safety for its own Popes— nor even for an outstanding nun like Mother Teresa of Calcutta (a.k.a. Kolkata).

According to the Council of Trent, Canon 16; If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

According to the Catholic Catechism, CCC.1035, when people die with even just one(1) unabsolved mortal sin to their credit, they go directly to Hell and eternal suffering; no stopover in a purgatory; it's a direct flight. So then, if somebody has been a faithful Catholic for say, 45 years, and then dies with just that one(1) unabsolved mortal sin to their credit, then those 45 years were all for nothing. Those faithful years are stricken from the record and they become no better off than an atheist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim (c.f. Ezk 18:24).

( 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. )

Are those excerpts from the Council and from the Catechism; and prayers for a Pope supposed to be good news of great joy? No, that kind of news isn't good news of great joy at all; but, in reality, is very bad news indeed because if Popes, and nuns like Mother Teresa, 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.

I want you to think about something. 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, commandment proof, human-error proof, God proof rescue from the wrath of God? He would be of no benefit at all; ergo: as a rescuer, Rome's savior is a plastic, incompetent ninny: a false hope. Thus, zero-hope religions like Roman Catholicism can be easily identified as those Christian religions whose message announces the zero-joy news of a milksop savior that nobody can really depend on for anything.

But, if a savior were to be announced who guaranteed anybody who wants it, a completely free of charge, no strings attached, fail-safe, sin proof, commandment proof, human-error proof, God-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.

§. 1Pet 1:3-6 . .Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade— kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice

§. 1Pet 1:8-9 . .You love him even though you have never seen him. Though you do not see him, you trust him; and even now you are happy with a glorious, inexpressible joy. Your reward for trusting him will be the salvation of your souls.

§. 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.

Note the grammatical tense of Jesus' "have" verb. It's in the present tense; not future. Catholics are not permitted to believe themselves in possession of eternal life right now, down here on the earth; ergo: they (1) do not listen to Christ's message, (2) do not trust his God, (3) are in grave danger of eternal suffering, and (4) are existing in a state of Death. Is that supposed to be good news of great joy? I don't think so because the Dead's destiny is Rev 20:11-15's reservoir of flaming liquid.

All of Jesus' sheep have eternal life right now; whether in Heaven or on earth. As an example, I'm going to misquote The Lord. Watch for the error.

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

Catch the error? The first "shall" in that passage was inserted. Take that "shall" away and it becomes immediately apparent that Jesus gives his sheep eternal life the very moment they begin listening to his voice; just as he said in John 5:24. So then, people professing themselves to be Jesus' sheep, while not possessing eternal life, are fakes; plus they are not only dead, but also quite damned.

§. John 3:36 . .All who rely upon the Son have eternal life; but those who don't shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on them.

During our years as active Catholics, we were 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 Man's spiritual affections; which is an intolerable situation since the Bible's God demands 100% of Man's religious devotion.

§. Deut 6:5 . .And you shall love Yhvh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.

§. Matt 22:37-38 . .Jesus said to him; You shall love The Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment.

You see, when people professing themselves to be Jesus' followers pray to celestial beings like departed saints and/or angels, they're not really loving God with all their heart, all their soul, and all their mind. No, they're allotting God a percentage of their all, but not 100% of their all.

A number of other gods vied for Man's devotion in Jacob's day; and out of all the available options, he selected Yhvh (contingent, in Jacob's spiritually immature mind, upon The Lord'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 so-called 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's authority (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 divine providence.

Jacob's vow reflects a personal decision of his own volition to make Yhvh the sole object of his religious devotion to the exclusion of all the other gods that people commonly looked to in his day for divine providence. 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 that, although my wife and I didn't actually worship patron saints, nevertheless, as practicing Roman Catholics, we were polytheists just like uncle Laban because of our devotion to God's competitors rather than narrowing the field down to just the one benefactor like Jacob did. That was a very important mile-stone for Jacob; and it's a very tall obstacle for Catholics to overcome because most of them feel far more comfortable looking to after-market providers such as Jesus' mom and departed saints rather than looking to the Holy Bible's God alone for everything.

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

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

However, if you read that passage in Revelation with a little more care, you'll see 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.

An additional detail, often overlooked by the average Catholic, is that the subject matter of the prayers in those bowls isn't stated; so it would be purely conjecture to allege they are intercessory prayers. It's far more likely the prayers of departed saints are for justice and vindication (e.g. Rev 6:10).

That's true. Typically, a scriptural idol is a some sort of statue or figurine; although the Bible says that covetousness is all the same as idolatry (Col 3:5). What Rome has done is artificially empower Jesus' mom to the point where it's made her a Goddess. So it would be far more accurate to say that Roman Catholicism isn't idolatry, but rather, polytheism.

Having said that, the New Testament Greek word for idolatry at Col 3:5 is eidololatreia (i-do-lol-at-ri'-ah); which means: image-worship.

When people kneel before a statue of Mary, or a statue of Peter, or any other statue of religious significance (e.g. saints and angels), including statues of Christ; speaking to it in prayer, then I would have to say that easily qualifies as Biblical idolatry. Same goes for kneeling before, and/or praying to, paintings and artifacts and relics. The wording of the first Commandment is very clear on such matters (Ex 20:3-5, Deut 5:6-9).

§. Mark 12:30 . .And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

You see, when people love the Bible's God with all their heart, all their soul, all their mind, and with all their strength; then their "all" is all used up and there's nothing left for Mary and the saints and angels. It's only when people are estranged from God that they need statues, paintings, relics, intermediaries, architecture, artifacts, and garments to make them feel holy. Man invariably prefers to worship something he can either see, taste, touch, hear, or feel. That's why statues and paintings, and such, are so appealing. And the rosary too, because that's something people can hold in their own two hands.

Let me ask you something. If you were on death row, with your seat in the gas chamber barely thirty minutes away, wouldn't you, as a Roman Catholic, request a rosary for your last minutes? Or perhaps you'd be motivated to implore Jesus' mom to "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death". Praying to a celestial personage to protect you from the wrath of God is nothing less than rank paganism.

There's a statue of Peter in Rome whose big toe has been eroded over the years by the lips of people kissing it. I would have to say that easily qualifies as idolatry. I've no objection to paintings, statues, and stained glass, but when people kneel to, and/or pray to, and/or kiss those items, then I believe they've trespassed into forbidden territory, and broken the very first of the Ten Commandments.

I believe rote prayer is idolatry too because there's nothing personal in chanting. Real prayers are words from the heart, and with the heart communicates with a sentient God; a God who prefers to be spoken to as an intelligent person with feelings, rather than be bored to tears with mindless mantras and chanting. You just try communicating with your spouse, or your friends and associates with rote conversation and see how they like it. They will not only be offended; and look at you like you've lost your mind; but more than likely recommend therapy too.

There's a church in Siena Italy said to store the very arm of John the Baptist that was used to baptize Jesus. It's brought out once a year on John's feast day. There's another church in Milan where a nail from Jesus' cross is stored. Isn't that just a bit morbid? It's like keeping a hangman's noose, or a guillotine blade around the house as a souvenir of somebody's death. The thing Jesus himself gave as a memorial of his death is the Lord's Supper (1Cor 11:23-26) which is just a bit more civilized than venerating tools of the executioner's trade.

OBJECTION : I am surprised that you, as an apparently educated Christian, would stoop to the absurdity of condemning statues as idolatry. A statue is merely a visible reminder of a person that has special meaning in one's life, similar to a family photo or picture.

It may seem absurd to that objector; but not to me. When I was converted from Catholicism back in 1968, my very first act of repentance was to summarily dispose of a crucifix given to me by my mother when I left home at 17 years-old to serve in the US Army. No one told me I had to get rid of it. Disposing of that crucifix was an act of my own newly-awakened conscience in respect to the very first of the so-called Ten Commandments.

§. Ex 20:4-5 . .Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them

Even if I possessed a genuine digital photograph of the actual New Testament Jesus, I would destroy it in respect of that commandment; and of Paul's mandate.

Maybe that objector doesn't think art and statuary are bad; but nevertheless, they look bad; and if a professing Catholic is unable to get into an attitude of worship without the assistance of visual aids, then I must conclude that they are completely out of contact with the Holy Spirit. Pagans have always had a propensity towards visual aids. Real-life itself abundantly demonstrates that when people are given a visual aid, it's only a matter of time before they begin speaking to it and/or eroding its big toe by the application of multiplied thousands of kisses. I regard visual aids as diversions and occasions to sin. They actually lead people away from contact with the Bible's God, and transfers their affections to artificial substitutes.

Thirdly; it was never intended to be venerated, kissed, spoken to, or prayed to (2Kng 18:1-5)

Fourthly; it is to be used in appreciating the effectiveness of Jesus' crucifixion (John 3:14-18)

Here is what John 3:14-18 means when it is interpreted in relation to the copper snake (and somebody needs to relay this information to Regis Philbin [a Catholic] and Kathy Lee Gifford [a Protestant] because neither one of them could explain this when asked by a caller on their show some years ago, and Kathy even has a relative who's a church officer).

Everybody who was bitten by the deadly snakes in Num 21:5-9 was doomed to die, no exceptions; ergo: they were all, every victim, dead men walking. The only God-ordained remedy was to look to the copper snake. That's all they had to do. It was very simple; and Moses put it up high enough for everybody to see it; even from a distance. It wasn't sequestered inside an ornate cathedral, nor did people have to make a special pilgrimage to a distant land to see it.

Failure to look to the copper snake for a remedy left victims hopelessly gripped in a default condition of death. That is the teaching of John 3:14-16, and that is why faithful Catholics all over the world are in grave danger of Hell and eternal suffering the very instant they die; because they have not been taught to fully depend upon Jesus' crucifixion as the one and only remedy for their deserving-of-Hell status. No, instead, they are relying heavily upon their personal piety, their compliance with commandments, upon charity, and their own good works instead of Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore, God has no choice but to leave them in a dead-man-walking condition because that is the default condition. So then, what are the ramifications of that? Simple. The Dead's names aren't written in the book of Life; ergo: according to Rev 20:11-15, they will all be thrown into a reservoir of flaming liquid.

Life is not the default, no, Death is the default; and Life is the option. So that everybody who has yet to look to Jesus' crucifixion as their only possible hope of escape from the wrath of God, is already damned and already on their way to Hell and eternal suffering; no exceptions. Catholics looking to statues, paintings, relics, architecture, artifacts, garments, and Jesus' mom to protect them from the wrath of God are in very serious trouble.

§. John 3:36 . .All who rely upon the Son have eternal life; but those who don't shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on them.

Those two metallic angels were sequestered deep in the bowels of the tabernacle where no commoner's eyes could even see them; let alone kneel to them, speak to them, venerate them, or pray to them. At first, only Moses and Aaron were allowed back in there, and later, only an Aaronic high priest; but even so, he was permitted in there but once a year on Yom Kippur to sprinkle blood on the mercy seat. Failure to observe that rule was punishable by death. And the rule wasn't made to protect the angels; no, it was to protect God's sanctity because it was back in that inner sanctum where God met with his people— not in the cherubims, but rather; between them.

§. Ps 80:1 . .Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.

§. Ps 99:1 . .The Lord reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved.

§. Isa 6:1-4 . .In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also The Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said; Holy, Holy, Holy, is The Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

I wouldn't recommend attempting to pray to those two angels because their only concern is to protect the sanctity of God; not to mediate between God and Man. According to Rom 10:12-13 whosoever calls upon The Lord will be spared. So if you are praying to angels; you will not be spared.

The Old Testament contains a number of prayers that once begged Yhvh to punish persecutors. Those prayers are commonly known as imprecatory Psalms; and quite a few Christians struggle with them because they've been so brainwashed that it's wrong to wish harm upon one's enemies. But just wishing harm on somebody is quite a bit different than wishing for justice; and justice is what those Old Testament saints are going to get before it's over.

§. Luke 18:2-8 . .There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: and there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying; Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself; Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

. . And the Lord said; Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.

§. Rev 6:9-10 . .And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying; How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

There are a number of Jesus' prayers of which that objector is obviously unaware; as is everybody else who lacks the skills and training to find him in the book of Psalms; e.g. Ps 22:6-21. Exactly how people in the past knew what Jesus would be saying on the cross is pretty amazing. I agree it is disturbing to think that some of the imprecatory Psalms are actually Jesus' own personal wishes; but in light of the terrible things Christ has planned for people in the book of Revelation, it is not all that difficult to believe that some of the imprecatory prayers in the book of Psalms are actually his; even the ones that condemned Judas to Hell. According to Acts 1:20, portions of Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 apply to Judas; and they are not very nice. In light of Psalm 69 and 109, some people are simply going to have to revise their estimation of the New Testament's Jesus.

OBJECTION : On the cross Jesus prayed that his enemies' sin of crucifying him not be held against them. Do you really think God didn't answer His own son's prayer?

The pronoun them of "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" doesn't refer to Jesus' enemies. While true that Christ died for his enemies (Rom 5:6-11) he only prays for believers.

§. John 17:8-9 . .For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

§. John 17:20-21 . .My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

§. 1John 2:1 . .My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if any do sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense— Jesus Christ, the Righteous one.

(The pronouns you and any and we and our in 1John 2:1 are limited to the recipients of John's letter, identified as "my dear children" viz: his fellow believers, and the siblings in God's home (cf. 1John 3:1-2).

Jesus' prayers were not always answered. He prayed to have the cup of crucifixion taken away from him; but failed to obtain his wish (Matt 26:39). Let that be a lesson to you. Catholics depending upon Mary's intercession in the hour of their death just may have to settle for a ping instead.

The purpose of the book of Revelation isn't just to foretell future events: no, it's an exposé revealing Jesus Christ for who he really is, and the degree of violence The Lamb is really capable of when its wrath is turned loose.

§. Rev 6:15-17 . .And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks; Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

In the book of Revelation, Jesus Christ is exposed to be capable of extreme violence, even of holocausts and genocide. He operates the winepress of the wrath of God, and orchestrates all those catastrophes right alongside his Father. The real Jesus is terrifying. He was Mr. NiceGuy while he was here only because he was supposed to go to the cross without putting up a fuss about it. But next time around, nobody is going to lay a finger on him.

So to assume those prayers in the bowls of Rev 5:8 are intercessory prayers spoken by saints in Heaven on behalf of people living down on the earth is merely conjecture, and is reading fiction into the sacred texts instead of reading facts out of them. What they more likely prayed for is justice; and they are going to get it.

§. 2Thss 1:6-9 . .Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

OBJECTION :How could Jesus, the kindest man who ever lived, not pray for the lost?

Although the New Testament's Jesus died for the whole world, he does not pray for the whole world. No; he intercedes only for those whom God has given him; viz: for believers, and only for believers.

§. John 17:20-21 . .My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

§. 1John 2:1 . .My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if any do sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense— Jesus Christ, the righteous one.

The Lord's sheep don't request intercession from his mom because the spirit of God's son is a barrier to that kind of behavior.

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

Abba is an Aramaic word that means, among other things, dad, daddy, pop, papa, padre, dada, or father, et al. It's not a formal word; but rather, pretty much informal because it's a family vocative. What I mean is; when I'm out in the garage working and my son and his mother are in the kitchen talking about me, the noun "dad" is just who I am to my boy. But when he wants to get my attention by calling out : Dad! Where are you? Then dad becomes a vocative.

What that boils down to is this : the spirit of His son always compels the Lord's sheep to call out to a father, never to a mother and the reason for that is actually quite simple. The Bible's Christ never prays to a mother; but always to a father; hence those inhabited by his spirit will do the very same thing.

That, by the way, is a pretty good litmus test. If somebody is comfortable praying to the Lord's mom, then that's pretty good evidence that they are not inhabited by the spirit of God's son; which means of course that they have not yet undergone adoption into His home.

§. Rom 8:15-17 . .For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out : Abba! Father. The Spirit itself testifies to our spirit, that we are God's kin.

The pronouns "you" and "we" in that passage are of course restricted to people who have been given the spirit of His son. Obviously then; those who don't have it, are quite christless and in very grave danger of eternal suffering.

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

An additional benefit of possessing the spirit of His son is eternal life. In this next passage, note the grammatical tense of the "have" verb : it's in the present tense, not future, indicating that people inhabited by the spirit of His son have eternal life right now— no delay, and no waiting period. Ergo; people passing themselves off as Christians; while not possessing eternal life : (1) do not have the spirit of His son, and (2) exist as christless Christians.

§. 1John 5:9-12 . .God's testimony carries more weight than human testimony; and this is what God has testified concerning His son : He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

People who refuse to accept the ramifications of 1John 5:9-12 openly attest that the Bible's God is a person of questionable integrity who cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

§. 1John 5:10-12 . .Anyone who does not believe God insinuates that He's a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about His son. And this is the testimony: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

It's very easy to see that whether one's label is Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran, et al; is of no in importance whatsoever compared to the importance of possessing the spirit of His son.

§. 2 Cor 13:5 . . Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith : prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

(3) Does your innermost being hear The Spirit testifying that there is a room of your own, with your name on the door; all furnished and waiting for you in God's home?

If you answered YES to (1) and NO to (2) and NO to (3); then Christ is not in you; and in reality, you'd be no worse off spending Sunday morning in a sports bar as idling away your time in church.

Our next few comments will be based upon information derived from the book below :

Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light
The Private Writings of the "Saint of Calcutta"
Edited with commentary by Brian Kolodiejchuk, M.C.
ISBN 978-0-385-52037-9

The "private writings" in the title of the book refer to personal letters Teresa penned to spiritual counselors that she never intended for the public eye; in point of fact it was her wish they be destroyed after her death but superiors declined her request.

The author, Father Kolodiejchuk, was one of Teresa's personal friends for about twenty years. At last check, he was the director of the Mother Teresa Center, and a postulator in favor of her canonization. He obtained Church approval prior to publishing Teresa's private correspondence.

One of Teresa's chronic complaints to counselors was about the utter absence of God in her soul. In one of her letters, penned to a Father Picachy, Teresa complained; "I am told God loves me; and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."

In yet another letter, penned to a Father Joseph Neuner, S.J. Teresa confessed: Now Father— since 49 or 50 this terrible sense of loss— this untold darkness— this loneliness, this continual longing for God— which gives me pain deep down in my heart— Darkness is such that I really do not see neither with my mind nor with my reason— the place of God in my soul is blank— There is no God in me— when the pain of longing is so great— I just long & long for God— and then it is that I feel— He does not want me— He is not there— God does not want me— Sometimes— I just hear my own heart cry out— "My God" and nothing else comes— the torture and pain I can't explain—

In a nutshell, Teresa was tormented for literally decades by her inability to feel even the smallest glimmer of The Lord's presence. She felt abandoned by Christ, and referred to him as "the absent One" and said of her own supposed cheerfulness : "My smile is a great cloak that hides a multitude of pains." In another letter she said: "The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God; and that He does not really exist."

The poor woman was so unsure of the existence of a supreme being that she at one time wrote; "If there be God— please forgive me." In practicality, Teresa was an agnostic; which Webster's defines as: one who is non committed to believing in either the existence, or the nonexistence, of a supreme being.

What I'm getting at is that the spirit of His son is supposed to prevent tragedies like Teresa's. Here, look at this :

Had Teresa been the beneficiary of the spirit of His son, she never would have gone through such an extended dark night of the soul as hers. We're talking about virtually five decades of darkness : 50 years of it, And even during her final weeks, Teresa experienced a fear that if a God does exist, He didn't particularly like her and might be quite disposed to condemn her to Hell.

Friends; look again at those two passages above. Look especially at the words : "I will not abandon you as orphans" and at the words : "the Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are God's kin"

That poor woman never once heard the Spirit testify with her spirit that God in any way at all loved her enough to call her His own. I'm not lying about this. Teresa was so disturbed by the absence of God in her soul that she finally submitted to an exorcism— performed by Father Rosario Stroscio —if perchance demons were clouding her mind. Clouding Teresa of Calcutta's mind!? For five decades!?

The 79 year-old Father Stroscio said Mother Teresa appeared dazed and behaving strangely at the time of the exorcism.

Paul the apostle penned Rom 8:15-17 and was no doubt a beneficiary of everything in the passage. Here's his end of life testimony : compare it to Teresa's.

§. 2Tim 4:6-8 . .For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Paul wasn't anxiety-ridden, nor was his mind clouded, nor was he dazed and behaving strangely. No, he wasn't, because that is just simply not the way the spirit of His son works; nor the result of the Spirit's testimony in one's soul.

So if my purpose of these comments isn't to destroy Mother Teresa, then what is it? It's this :

§. 2Cor 13:5 . . Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith : prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

You know, I have to give Teresa her due in one respect. She was fully aware Christ wasn't in her and she made passionate efforts to obtain an answer as to why he wasn't. Unfortunately, her spiritual counselors had no answers; but at least she complied with 2Cor 13:5. I just wish to God that more Christians were that conscientious. It's because they aren't, that many come to the end of their lives wondering what to expect when they cross over to the other side.

If you've seen The Davinci Code, you know from the movie that scotoma is a subconsciously induced psychological blindness caused by the mind's propensity to disregard concepts that are incongruous with deep seated, preconceived notions. In other words; the mind automatically glosses over the obvious when the obvious doesn't harmonize with the mind's already in-place concepts.

§. John 5:10-12 . .Anyone who does not believe God insinuates that He's a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about His son. And this is the testimony : He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

For those who missed that quote the first time around, what it's saying; or rather what God is saying, is that if you do not at present possess eternal life, then at present you are a christless Christian.

For some people, the ramifications of God's immutable testimony in that passage is just simply too fearful to digest. Because it's saying that there are Catholics on the road to Hell even as we speak in spite of their denominational affiliation— all the while insisting that theirs is the one true church. Well, just what real value is there in being affiliated with a one true church when the flames of Hell are licking at your naked legs?

According to the Lord's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to his own body; people who correctly imbibe his blood, and correctly dine upon his flesh, have eternal life right now; no delay and no waiting period. Be sure to note the grammatical tense of his "have" verb because it's present tense; not future.

I have been dialoguing with Catholics online for about thirteen years now and not one of them has ever claimed to obtain eternal life from the Eucharist; no, not one, yet they vehemently defend transubstantiation. You know what that tells me about them? Answer : they are unable to believe the Lord is a man of his word.

In the passages below, note the correlation between eternal life and trust in Christ's sayings.

§. 1John 5:13 . .These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.

I often indulge myself in a bit of spiritual cruelty by challenging Catholics to stand up on the internet, in full view of the world-wide audience, and in witness of God Almighty and His son Jesus Christ, and testify, in all honesty and a good conscience; these words : I have eternal life and will never again be in danger of eternal suffering.

Not one— zero —has ever accepted my challenge; and by chickening out like that they shamefully insinuate that Christ and his Father are persons of low moral integrity who cannot be trusted to tell the truth : and by doing so bring upon themselves the awful prediction quoted below.

§. Mark 8:38 . .Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son Of Man be ashamed, when he arrives in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

FYI : Eternal life is a kind of life that cannot die; therefore it 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.

Obviously then, people with eternal life have nothing to fear from the reservoir of liquefied flame depicted at Rev 20:11-15 since it is clearly labeled a death— but then isn't that what the Lord testified at John 5:24?

§. Luke 11:1-2 . . One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him : Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples. He said to them : When you pray, say : Father

There are no instances of the Lord and Master of New Testament Christianity— nor of any of the inspired New Testament writers —either commanding, teaching, encouraging, leading by example, or even so much as suggesting —that prayer be made to celestial beings and/or deceased human beings: and for good reason. Christ— himself a devoted, observant Jew —never prayed to his mother, nor to celestial beings, nor to deceased human beings, nor to anybody other than the one true God of the Jews : his Father. Since that was the Son's habit, then that very same compulsion should be evident in all God's kin since they are supposed to be recipients of the only begotten Son's filial mentality.

§. Gal 4:6a …And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of His son into your hearts

The nature of a son's spirit is quite a bit different than the nature of a father's spirit or the nature of a mother's spirit. In particular; Jesus' spirit is the mentality of an only child : the nature of God's kin. So that anyone who truly has the Son's spirit in their hearts should be experiencing the very same personal filial bond with the Father that Jesus experiences.

Recipients of the spirit of His son are also recipients of another kind of sprit too.

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

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

In other words : the spirit of adoption imparts to God's legal children a heartfelt bond with God that enables them to feel the love, and the friendship, and the security feelings that normal boys and girls feel with their birth parents.

Some professing Christians think it's disrespectful to regard the Bible's God as a dad. But that kind of thinking isn't the mentality of a child in the home; no, that is the mentality of hired hands, and subjects, and vassals, and slaves. I am none of those; no, I am kin to The King. There's a place of my own all set around the table in His home waiting for me to arrive.

Do you see now why I cannot pray to Jesus' mom? It's just simply impossible to overcome not only my family ties to the Lord's Father, but also the powerful impulses of the spirit of adoption. The spirit of adoption always wins out over all other spirits when it comes time for me to pray because it just naturally compels me to use a vocative to get my adoptive Father's attention without my even thinking about it.

Adoption severs any and all obligations related to one's biological parents; and in the eyes of the law, one's adoptive parents are just as "biological" as the originals. Though I was at one time the son of an earthly father, I am now the legal son of a celestial father so that Christ is not only my master; but also my sibling; and in point of fact, since his mom is a Christian, then she too is my sibling; and all three of us share the same paterfamilias together.

§. John 20:17 . . Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and unto your Father; and unto my God, and unto your God.

What this all boils down to is that God's kin should feel an overwhelming compulsion to pray to their adoptive Father without their having to be told to. It should come naturally (so to speak), just as naturally as it came to Jesus. And they should feel an equally overwhelming revulsion praying to somebody else. So then, people with a habit of praying to celestial beings, and/or human beings like Jesus' mom and departed saints, obviously don't have the spirit of God's son in their heart compelling them to call out to its Father. No, the spirit in their heart compels them to call out to strangers.

The Hail Mary (sometimes called the "Angelical salutation", sometimes, from the first words in its Latin form, the "Ave Maria") is the most familiar of all the prayers used by the Universal Church in honor of our Blessed Lady.

At the close of the fifteenth century there was not any officially approved conclusion, though a form closely resembling our present one was sometimes designated as "the prayer of Pope Alexander VI" (see "Der Katholik", April, 1903, p. 334), and was engraved separately on bells (Beisesel, "Verehrung Maria", p. 460).

Two Anglo-Saxon manuscripts at the British Museum, one of which may be as old as the year 1030, show that the words "Ave Maria" etc. and "benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui" occurred in almost every part of the Cursus, and though we cannot be sure that these clauses were at first joined together so as to make one prayer, there is conclusive evidence that this had come to pass only a very little later.

CCC 2676: This twofold movement of prayer to Mary has found a privileged expression in the Ave Maria: Hail Mary [or Rejoice, Mary]: the greeting of the angel Gabriel opens this prayer.

It only stands to reason, that since the Ave Maria is a prayer to a human being, then any, and all other, verbal attempts to contact people who no longer inhabit the earth have to be construed as prayer to human beings too.

OBJECTION :Mary is no longer a human being; so prayer to her is not paganism!

When people die, they exist out of the body, yes, but they never stop existing as a human being. I don't know why that objector would think the ghost of a human being is somehow less human than the body of a human being. So that praying to the spirit of a human being is really no different than praying to them while they're flesh and blood.

And anyway, Rome teaches that Jesus' mom left this earth as a whole person— as a whole human being, not as a spirit being.

By promulgating the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Likewise, the Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that "the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things.

Since Rome teaches Jesus' mom was taken up "body and soul" then I believe there's justification to conclude that Rome's Mary would have been a viable human being at the moment of her alleged assumption because a body without a soul is a dead body; e.g. when God created Adam, his body lay on the ground as a corpse until God breathed into it the power of life; and it was then that Man became a sentient being (Gen 2:7). A body without its spirit, is a dead body; viz: a corpse (Jas 2:26). Would that objector really have us to believe that Rome's Mary went up to Heaven in two pieces: as a spirit and as a corpse?

OBJECTION : The Hail Mary is a biblical prayer! God gave it to us. It's in the Bible in black and white.

First that person said it wasn't a prayer; now they say it's not only a prayer, but a biblical prayer. A vacillating man is inconsistent in everything he does (Jas 1:8).

Some co-workers of mine who were in Viet Nam during the 70's, related to me how they were detailed to go out into the jungle and tally the number of VC dead so that high command could evaluate the effectiveness of heavy bombing runs. The enemy's bodies were often ripped to pieces making the dead difficult to count; so what the guys did was scrounge up enough body parts to assemble a John Doe; they would kick pieces of bodies into a pile, then they could enter the *man they constructed into the log as a dead soldier. That came to be known as a kick-count.

What Catholic Christianity has done is cobble up an alleged biblical prayer by piecing together excerpts of Gabriel's and Elizabeth's dialogue; in effect, scrounging up a kick-count prayer.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the "Hail Mary" is not an in-the-Bible prayer, but is a developed prayer; and it was developed over a number of years.

Here's the entire text of the so-called Hail Mary. Words enclosed by brackets are inserted words.

Hail [Mary] full of grace, the Lord is with thee,
blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb [Jesus].
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

“Hail [Mary] full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women” was plagiarized from Gabriel's greeting at Luke 1:28 (Douay-Rheims version).

“blessed is the fruit of thy womb” was plagiarized from Elizabeth's greeting at Luke 1:42, (Douay-Rheims version).

“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen." is stated by the official Catechism of the Council of Trent to have been fabricated by the Church itself.

Obviously then, portions of the Hail Mary, in its official form, are borrowed from the Bible; but the text itself, as a prayer, is not actually in the Bible; but rather, it's a man-made supplication concocted from plagiarized excerpts of conversations between Jesus' mom, Gabriel, and Elizabeth; with an ending invocation composed entirely by Roman Catholic invention.

The Father's true children would never recite a rote mantra like the Ave Maria anyway because to do so would not only run contrary to Jesus' wishes at Matt 6:7-9 but the nature of an adoptee that they received from God at the moment of their second birth as per John 3:3-8 always compels them to converse with a father; never a mother.

§. Rom 8:15-16 . .For you have not received a spirit of slavery again to fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out; Dad! Father. The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

When true believers pray in The Spirit; they will pray to Jesus' father rather than his mother.

§. Jude 1:20 . .But you, dear friends, must continue to build your lives on the foundation of your holy faith. And continue to pray as you are directed by the Holy Spirit.

When people believing themselves to be Christians pray to Jesus' mom instead of Jesus' father, they are not praying as the Holy Spirit directs; plus; they are failing to build their lives on the foundation of holy faith; viz: they are praying as directed by an evil spirit, and building their lives upon demonic faith.

Do you have a God proof, commandment proof, human-error proof, sin proof guarantee of 100% safety and rescue from the wrath of God and full time protection from retribution? No, you don't.

Let me ask you: Is there the slightest possibility that you, as a Roman Catholic, might go to Hell? Is there even the very teensiest possibility that you as a Roman Catholic might not make it to Heaven? I already know from the Catechism that your answer is supposed to be YES to both of those questions or otherwise you would fall within the jurisdiction of a very grave curse.

Council of Trent, Canon 16; If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

In addition, according to the Catechism, CCC 1035, you are just inches from the worst, because if it should happen that you leave this life with just one(1) un-absolved mortal sin, you will go directly to Hell and eternal suffering; no stop-over in a purgatory. No, your trip will be a direct flight. Even if you've been a faithful Catholic for 49 years, you will miss the boat just as if you had been a Hindu, or a Muslim, or an atheist. All your years as a faithful Catholic will be stricken from the record and you will be summarily put to death in a reservoir of flaming liquid (cf. Ezk 18:24 and Rev 20:11-15).

Since you, as a Catholic, are living day by day in imminent danger of death and eternal suffering; then I know for a proof positive fact that you are not in God's hands. How do I know? From believing Christ's testimony as an expert witness in matters related to the afterlife.

§. John 10:27-29 . .My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Not only did Jesus say that his own will "never" perish, but he also said that no man is able to pluck them out of either his own hand or out of his Father's hand. Are you a man, a human being? Then not even you could pluck your own self out of either Jesus' hand or out of his Father' hand if indeed you were in their hands.

That's not all. Paul was confident that not even one(1) created thing could separate himself from God's love (Rom 8:38-39). Are you a created thing? Then if you were truly in God's hands; not even you could separate yourself from His love; and I guarantee you, people in Hell are not only separated from God, but also separated from His love. They're in an outer darkness where there's wailing and gnashing of teeth.

OBJECTION : Regarding eternal assurance, and your apparent view that Catholics do not think they are saved, please consider the official position of the Church: "By grace alone, through faith in Christ's saving work, and by no merit of our own are we called by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who equips and calls us to good works." That's cause to rejoice for me! While I and other faithful Catholics can feel comfortable in our salvation at this very moment, it is presumptuous and arrogant to assume your eternal destiny before the end of your earthly life. Maybe you should think a bit more about "work(ing) out your salvation, in fear and trembling." (Php 2:12).

A works-based salvation is diametrically opposed to a grace-based salvation; and turns the grace of God into a merit award.

§. Eph 2:8-9 . .God spared you by His benevolence when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it's a gift from God. Salvation is not compensation for the good things we have done; so none of us can boast about it.

§. Titus 3:4-8 . .He spared us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy; by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs to an anticipation of eternal life.

By failing to understand that a gift is a gratuity— which Webster's defines as: something given voluntarily: beyond recognition and/or obligation —the objector subsequently failed to properly apply Php 2:12. People who insist upon a works-based salvation have not yet believed the gospel; because Paul said that God's benevolence is available "when you believe" and by no other method.

Working in order to earn one's rescue from the wrath of God insults the spirit of altruism, and places God's benevolence in the category of a wage.

§. Rom 4:4-5 . .Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who acquits the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

§. Rev 22:17 . .The Spirit and the bride say, "Come" And let him who hears say, "Come" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

That Catholic objector said they're rejoicing, but I can easily assure you they have nothing to rejoice about all the while there remains even the teensiest possibility of their going to Hell. They're not in God's hands at all; no, on the contrary, their application of Php 2:12 has them in their own hands; and their attitude that "it is presumptuous and arrogant to assume your eternal destiny before the end of your earthly life" while certainly accurate in their own particular case, is actually a vote of no-confidence in Jesus' and his Father's shepherding skills. A sheep that can't trust their shepherd to protect it from predators, and from its own stupidity, is an insecure sheep that has utterly failed to rely upon Jesus' testimony as an expert witness at John 10:27-29.

Question: Don't you think that a Christian saying the Rosary increases their chances at salvation?

A professing Christian who's looking for chances to be saved, is not yet a believer. In the passages below, which are excerpts from letters that the apostle Paul wrote to his protégés Timothy and Titus, Paul used the past tense with regards to his own personal redemption.

§. 2Tim 1:8-9 . .Do not be ashamed then of testifying of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel in the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago

§. Titus 3:3-5 . .For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy

The pronouns us, and we, and our indicate that Paul included himself with Titus and Timothy among sinners who were not looking for a chance to be redeemed, but were, in fact, already redeemed at the time of his writing the letters.

Professing Christians who do not yet possess eternal life, aren't believers. In the passages below, the grammatical tense of the verb "have" is in the present tense, not future; indicating that believers are already in possession of eternal life right now, no delay, and no waiting period.

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

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

Believers then, are in absolutely no danger of retribution. And why is that? Because eternal life is a kind of life that cannot die; therefore, it is invulnerable to the wages of sin.

§. Rom 6:23 . .For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life.

According to God's testimony as an expert witness, Christians without eternal life are, in reality, Christless Christians.

§. 1John 5:11-12 . .And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the life, does not have God's son.

In addition, professing Xians who are not in the right-now possession of eternal life, have not yet correctly dined upon Jesus' flesh and imbibed his blood.

Rosaries are a silly pagan habit practiced by candidates for redemption; but never practiced by believers whose election to salvation is already a sealed deal.

§. Eph 1:13-14 . .And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a good-faith deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession— to the praise of his glory.

§. Eph 4:30 . .And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

The rosary isn't prayer; it's rote chanting and no more pleasing to God than a Hindu mantra.

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

Rote prayer isn't from one's heart; no, it's from memory; it's an impersonal, endless loop of the same words over and over again like the greeting on an answering machine.

If you need a man-made device in order to be more serious and focused, then you are not praying in The Spirit; but rather, you are praying in the flesh.

§. John 4:23-24 . .A time is coming, and has now come, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in Spirit and in truth.

§. Jude 1:20 . .But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost

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

The Bible's Christ spoke for the Bible's God. So then to brush off Christ's instructions and elect to go with your feelings is to brush off the God who sent him here.

§. John 3:31-36 . .He has come from above and is greater than anyone else . . He tells what he has seen and heard, but how few believe what he tells them! Those who believe him discover that God is real. For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's Spirit is upon him without measure or limit . . All who rely upon God's Son have eternal life. Those who don't will never experience life, but the wrath of God remains upon them.

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

§. John 12:48-50 . .He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Don't be a heathen— heathens walk according to their feelings rather than according to the Bible God's instructions. Comply; walk in the light, as He is in the light; then you will have true fellowship with both God and His son.

§. 1 John 1:5-7 . .This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with Him, yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

OBJECTION : A telephone is a man-made device as well, and don't most people in the modern world use them?

The New Testament Christian's telephone to God is His own Spirit rather than a man-made device.

§. John 4:24 . .God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth.

§. Gal 4:4-7 . .And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His son into your hearts calling out: Abba! Father.

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

§. Jude 1:20 . .But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost

Prayer beads have no doubt been used in religious practices practically since the dawn of Man; so I would not call a set of rosary beads "modern". And besides, that objector was stubbornly, and willfully brushing off the New Testament Christ's instructions to avoid praying in "many words".

OBJECTION : The rosary is not babbling when I'm serious about what I'm doing.

Jesus' command is not only a mandate, but also an appeal to reason. The Bible's God is already fully aware of your concerns before you even speak; so get down to business and spell them out candidly and intelligently rather than wasting His time repeating a published prayer over and over again and boring Him to tears with mindless chanting.

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

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

Do you speak to your friends, your associates, your spouse, your domestic partner, your significant other, your doctor, your dentist, supermarket cashiers, or the cops by chanting beads? Of course not. They would write you off as one in desperate need of therapy if you did. Then why would anyone think it makes sense to speak to God with beads? Don't you think He looks upon rote chanters as mental cases when they do that? Of course He does; who wouldn't? How would you like it if everybody spoke to you like that? Well, He doesn't like it either. God is far more intelligent than anybody you could possibly name and rote chanters are treating Him like a totem pole. The Bible's God is a king who deserves far more respect than a US President yet people are speaking to Him like a tape recorder rather than the ultimate Sovereign that He is.

OBJECTION : I know that I am communicating with God when I recite the rosary. I can feel the power of it, and my soul becomes more calm.

Yes, of course that objector feels the power, and of course they feel calm; that's the natural effect of mantras: but feelings are carnal rather than spiritual; and definitely not a reliable indicator of one's connection with the Bible's God.

OBJECTION : Christ Himself prayed with repetitions; e.g. Matt 26:44 & Mark 14:39 where he "prayed the third time, saying the same words."

Christ prayed in neither an endless litany of memorized chants, nor rote mantras. His prayer was not only timely and to the point, but also from the heart; and the author of it was himself, not someone from whom he plagiarized the composition.

When making personal requests, it's okay to bring them up more than once; but three times seems to be the appropriate limit on personal requests. Paul prayed three times over a health problem; but after three, God instructed him to let it go (2Cor 12:7-9). There are no limits on rote mantras and memorized chanting simply by the fact that they're forbidden to begin with.

OBJECTION : What about hymns like Amazing Grace and The Old The Rugged Cross. Those are rote prayers set to music and people sing them more than once.

Neither of those two hymns are prayers; they're testimonies. In point of fact, if a disbeliever should sing either of those two hymns; they would not only be bearing false witness; but also telling a bald faced lie. Check the wording of hymns. You'll find that many of them are either praises, expressions of gratitude, or testimonies.

I think it is very important to point out that it's one thing to communicate with human beings while they're still on earth; but it is quite another to attempt to contact human beings who've gone over to the afterlife. That smacks of a séance; a practice condemned by Moses' covenanted law (Lev 19:31, Lev 20:6, Lev 20:27).

A séance is defined as an assembling together of a given number of persons for the purpose of seeking communication with the spirits who have passed away from earth into the Higher World of Souls; viz: a séance is a deliberate attempt to communicate with the dead; and supposedly helps participants understand life after death.

There is not one single instance in the New Testament of either Jesus, or of his apostles, nor of any of the New Testament's authors, either teaching or encouraging, suggesting, or of leading by example, in prayers to people in the afterlife.

New Testament believers have been adopted into God's home as His very own children (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:5, Eph 1:5, 1John 3:1-2). So then, Jesus' Father is my father too (John 20:17)— maybe not in the same intimate way that The Father is Jesus' father, but nevertheless, adopted children have all the rights and privileges of children born in the home; including a right to their adoptive father's unconditional love, a right to their adoptive father's name, a right to an inheritance, a right to speak with their adoptive father by a filial name like daddy, and a right to their adoptive father's time; e.g. hugs and kisses, companionship, providence, and bed time stories.

Additionally, an adopter can be held liable for child support in the event of divorce because the law makes no distinction between adopted children and biological children; ergo: an adopter cannot abandon their adopted children with any fewer legal ramifications than abandoning their own biological offspring.

So then, even if I were to somehow slip through a crack and end up in Hell, I entertain no doubts whatsoever that my Father would accompany me there and provide for all my creature comforts; so that for me— one of His precious little adoptees —life in Hell would be like a holiday at the beaches of Waikiki.

§. Heb 13:5 . .Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Normal children, from normal homes and families, communicate with their dads one-on-one, in an atmosphere of family, as friends and lovers are supposed to speak to one another: not through séance practices.

§. Php 4:6-7 . .Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which defies human logic, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

People who attempt to contact God via the dead do so because they experience no family bond with God whatsoever: no, they're outsiders; they're not family at all.

§. 1Pet 1:22 . . Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto sincere love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently

NOTE: some Christians truly feel that the purification of one’s soul is transient; viz: the moment they leave a confessional their souls begin getting soiled all over again.

Peter is not talking about that. No, his focus is upon something far more effective than a confessional. He’s talking about a one-time purification, rather than a weekly routine; and it’s permanent too rather than a temporary expedient.

§. Heb 10:11 . . Day after day every Levitical priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by just that one sacrifice alone he has made perfect forever those who have been set apart for God.

A “pure” heart isn’t necessarily a heart that thinks and/or feels no evil. The Greek word for pure is from katharos (kath-ar-os') which means: clean. The context is past tense so that Peter means cleansed; as in already clean.

What we’re talking about here is the human conscience. This is crucial because there are no sacrifices, nor any atonements, in the Aaronic qorbanot system stipulated for cleansing the human conscience; no, none at all.

§. Heb 9:9 . . For the gifts and sacrifices that the [Aaronic] priests offer are not able to cleanse the consciences of the people who bring them.

The most serious problem confronting Man in his worship of God is his conscience— his innate sense of right and wrong; which is a corrupted sense resulting from eating the forbidden fruit all the way back at the beginning.

That's precisely why it is so difficult for human beings to justify God's actions in portions of the Bible where He's seen initiating genocide and the wholesale destruction of human life, including women and children and dumb animals. Handicapped with a defective sense of right and wrong, man's conscience is like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there because the cat left before the blind man arrived.

Man's natural conscience is like a computer program with damaged files. It wasn't that way prior to the forbidden fruit. But now there are times when God's thoughts and actions seem evil to Man because Man's sensibilities and God's sensibilities are worlds apart.

§. Gen 3:22 . . And Yhvh God said: The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

According to Gen 3:22, Man's conscience didn't become as God's conscience, knowing absolutes; no, Man's conscience became a God— it's own God with its own sense of right and wrong; so that now, in matters of right and wrong, Man is God's competitor.

§. Rom 3:10-12 . . As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless

Ever wonder why there are nine US Supreme Court justices? That's so there will never be a tie; which is really ironic because everybody on that panel is supposed to be experts on constitutional law, yet they seldom agree unanimously on anything. Why? Because each of the nine justices are his own God, and they write opinions rather than absolutes.

You tell me I'm wrong,
Then you better prove you're right!
(Janet Jackson / Scream)

Janet’s and Michael’s song is about injustice. But is it about absolute injustice? No. It's about Michael's and Janet's personal perception of injustice— perception varies from one individual to the next because Man's conscience is not ruled by absolutes, but rather, by his feelings, his impressions, and his opinions.

For example: President Barack Hussein Obama recently won the 2009 Nobel Peace prize. Some people feel he deserves it, but numbers of others are convinced the award was an insult to common sense because the man has done nothing whatsoever to deserve the honor.

People quite naturally feel there are times when God's thoughts and actions are wrong and/or ill advised because their own logic is the product of a 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within Man's bony little skull; and not even all three of those pounds are dedicated to cognitive processes. Man is but flesh; 60% water, and nothing in the world but a post-fruit mutant who hasn't a clue about moral absolutes.

§. Heb 9:13-14 . .The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Jesus' blood didn't actually remove my corrupted conscience and replace it with an improved system. Better words than cleanse are sanitize and/or absolve. Absolution is defined as: to set free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt. Thus, Jesus' blood not only absolved my acts of sin, but also absolved my corrupted conscience.

My point is: confession can't obtain absolution for the conscience any more than Aaronic sacrifices can; ergo: Catholicism's reconciliatory system is really no better a reconciliatory system than Judaism's.

Let's just suppose, that this very instant God were to wipe your record completely clean— granting you a blanket pardon for not only every sin you already committed, but also for every sin you are going to commit in the future; both the mortal ones and the venial ones; a full acquittal. Unfortunately, a pardon like that wouldn't get you into Heaven. You would still be in danger of outer darkness because of your corrupted conscience.

None of Aaron's sacrifices permanently absolve the conscience; no, not even for a week at a time; and I have never heard of any Catholic reconciliatory practices and/or rituals that permanently absolve it either. If there were, then Catholic priests would only need to perform it just one time, and one time only.

§. Heb 10:1-2 . . For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

§. Hag 2:10-15 . .On the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of Yhvh came to Haggai the prophet saying; Thus says Yhvh of Legions; Ask now the priests for a ruling:

. . If a man carries consecrated meat in the fold of his garment, and touches bread with this fold, or cooked food, wine, oil, or any other food, will it become consecrated? And the priests answered and said; No.

. . Then Haggai said; If one who is unclean from a corpse touches any of these, will the latter become unclean? And the priests answered and said; It will become unclean.

. .Then Haggai answered and said; So is this people. And so is this nation before Me; testifies Yhvh, and so is every work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean.

This is a fascinating principle. The consecration of a consecrated item, cannot be transferred to an unconsecrated item by physical contact with it.

In contrast, the uncleanness of an unclean item can be transferred to an otherwise clean item by physical contact with it.

So then, when people bless themselves with holy water when passing through the vestibule of a Catholic church, all they are really doing is making the holy water unholy; viz: the instant the consecrated water makes contact with the skin of an unconsecrated human being; it makes the sacred water just as unsacred as the water in a toilet bowl.

OBJECTION : What about the sacred potion made by mixing water with the ashes of a red heifer? (Num 19:19)

In order to correctly interpret the sprinkling portion of the ritual, it is necessary to examine the entire process in Num 19:1-22.

Bottom line is: the contaminated person must comply with every step of the cleansing process in order to become clean; which includes bathing his flesh and laundering his clothing.

A very important point to note is that the water of purification is actually toxic. Anyone who comes in physical contact with it becomes unclean till sundown; including the clean person who applied it— he too is required to bathe his flesh and launder his clothing just the same as the unclean person(s) upon whom he sprinkled the water.

In the final analysis then; according to the principles of Num 19:22 and Hag 2:10-15, the very first person to come in physical contact with the holy water in the vestibule of a Catholic church destroys its holiness; and from then on, every person following the first person is made ritually unclean by reason of contact with the contaminated water.

It's interesting to note that Jesus himself was baptized in the Jordan River; which is by no means "clean" water. Though it was no doubt a lot more sanitary in Jesus' day than now, nevertheless the Jordan River is a natural waterway that carried, even in Jesus' day, lots of microbes and contaminants from livestock and wildlife as the Jordan serves as the principle drainage for many thousands of acres in that region.

Contaminants from animal offal always end up in natural waterways. Even today, wildlife and livestock are major contributors to water pollution; and in Jesus' day, communities of people lived along the Jordan, who no doubt contributed their own share of offal related contaminants to the river, along with the water they discarded after doing the dishes, and laundering their clothes and bed sheets.

In that day, nobody had any artificial fertilizers so they used animal dung. Guess where portions of that dung eventually ended up?

Naaman the Syrian was thoroughly insulted at the suggestion of bathing in the Jordan since he felt it was totally inferior to the water in the rivers of his homeland (2Kng 5:10-12).

It is my judgment then, that if the very lord and master of New Testament Christianity himself was okay with being baptized in the water of the Jordan River, then I don't see how it would hurt for his followers to be baptized in ordinary tap water rather than holy water. At least tap water has been treated and is far more sanitary than the water in which Christianity's Lord was baptized.

OBJECTION : The contaminated waters of the Jordan River were sanctified by Christ's physical entry.

That notion is a shoot-from-the-lip expedient; and was invented right out of thin air, and is, of course, in violation of Moses' covenanted law.

§. 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.

According to Num 19:22 and Hag 2:10-15, the sacredness of a sacred item cannot be transferred to an unsacred item by physical contact.

In contrast, the uncleaness of an unclean item can be transferred to a clean item by physical contact; thus contaminating the clean and rendering it unclean; viz: Jesus' body, and his clothing, were soiled by contaminants in the Jordan river when John the Baptist put him in the water.

I have no clue why this should offend people, I mean, after all, the Bible's Christ was a human being; ergo: he needed to bathe, he needed deodorant, he need to poop, he needed to pee, he needed to sleep, he needed to eat, he needed to wash his hands before dinner, he needed to do laundry, and he needed to drink fluids just like everybody else. So what if the Jordan contaminated him? Is it really all that big of a deal? A quick bath with soap and water, and a fresh rinse would remove it and he'd be good as new. Natural contaminants aren't sinful, no, they're just unsanitary.

OBJECTION : Are you saying that when the bleeding woman in Matt 9:20 touched Jesus' clothes, her contact rendered him unclean? How can that be when Jesus, who is totally sinless, exemplified holiness, cleanness and all perfection?

The Scriptures cannot be broken. If anything, Jesus is an excellent true-to-life application of the principles of Num 19:22 and Hag 2:10-15; which are: the sacredness of a sacred item is not transferred to an unsacred item by physical contact, and the contamination of an unclean item is transferred to a sacred item by physical contact.

It needs to be reiterated from time to time that the New Testament's Jesus was never in his life exempt from Moses' covenanted law. He was a Jewish man by birth. So then; by virtue of his genetics and his ritual 8th day circumcision, he was obligated to comply with every last jot and tittle of Moses' covenanted law or else suffer the consequences of a curse.

§. Gal 4:4 . .But when the time had fully come, God sent His son . . born under the law

§. Gal 5:2-3 . .Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

§. 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 27:26 . .Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this Law by carrying them out.

Even if Num 19:22 and Hag 2:10-15 didn't exist; Moses' covenanted law would still mandate that every Jewish man who comes in contact with a bleeding woman is rendered unclean.

§. Lev 15:19 . .And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

Somebody might be tempted to make an excuse for Jesus because the bleeding woman sneaked up on him and touched him without either his knowledge or his consent. No; Moses' covenanted law is very clear. Contact is contact whether its knowing or unknowing.

§. Lev 5:2 . .Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, or a carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcasses of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and accountable.

The uncleanness that Jesus derived from contact with the bleeding woman (and with lepers) was small potatoes. His ultimate submission to uncleanness was when he went to the cross bearing the entire case-load of human sin.

§. Isa 53:6 . .All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Yhvh hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Going back to the previous example of the potion made with water mixed with the ashes of a red heifer (Num 19:1-22): the clean man designated to sprinkle the mixture becomes unclean himself in the process. However, it's no big deal so long as the man bathes his flesh and launders his clothes at the end of the day.

No one should be shocked that the New Testament's Jesus was willing to get down and dirty in order to be of service to his fellow Jewish countrymen. The New Testament's Jesus was not only a savior, but also a physician; and today, we would say that for doctors, contact with unsanitary conditions (e.g. disease) quite naturally "comes with the turf" just as naturally as professional welders have to submit themselves to hot metals and occasional burns in the performance of their duties.

According to the Catholic Catechism, CCC 1035, when people die with even just one(1) un-absolved mortal sin to their credit, they go directly to Hell and eternal suffering— no stopover in a purgatory; it's a direct flight. So then, if somebody has been a faithful Catholic for say, 45 years, and then dies with just that one(1) un-absolved mortal sin to their credit, then those 45 years were all for nothing. Those faithful years are stricken from the record and they face eternity really no better off than if they'd been an Atheist, a Hindu, or a Muslim all their lives: and according to the Catechism; there is no absolution in the afterlife.

CCC 393 . .It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.

Just how difficult is it to commit a Bible-grade mortal sin? It's a piece of cake. All that the offender has to do is already know in advance that the act they are about to perform is forbidden.

This means mortal sins cannot be done "accidentally." A person who commits a mortal sin is one who knows that their act is wrong, but chooses to go through with it anyway.

§. 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 10:26-28 . .If we sin willfully after receiving a 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.

OBJECTION : Doesn't Heb 10:26-28 apply to all Christians of every denomination?

The Catholic interpretation of Heb 10:26-28 does not apply to Christians who believe the Gospel.

§. Mark 16:15-16 . .And then he told them; Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to everyone, everywhere. Whoever believes and is baptized will be spared.

§. John 5:24 . .Verily, Verily, I say unto 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.

. . For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of His own son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

I appropriated the legalistic interpretation of Heb 10:26-28 to show that willfully sinning Catholics are toast because their plan of salvation is essentially commandment-based. For those of us who rely upon the Gospel rather than attempting to work up a personal righteousness by obeying commandments: where the author says "no sacrifice for sins is left" he simply means that Jesus' crucifixion is the final option for willfully committed sins.

§. Acts 13:39 . .And by him all that believe are acquitted from all things, from which you could not be acquitted by the law of Moses.

Judas was doomed to Hell before he was even born. According to Ste. Peter at Acts 1:20, key portions of Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 apply to Judas; and they are not very nice. His treatment of Jesus not only led to himself being cursed, but also his posterity.

§. Ps 69:21-28 . .They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst. May the table set before them become a snare; may it become retribution and a trap. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever. Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them. May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents.

. . For they persecute those you wound and talk about the pain of those you hurt. Charge them with crime upon crime; do not let them share in your salvation. May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.

§. Ps 109:4-15 . . Appoint an evil man to oppose him; let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him. May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children. May his descendants be cut off: their names blotted out from the next generation. May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before Yhvh; may the sin of his mother never be blotted out. May their sins always remain before Yhvh, that He may cut off the memory of them from the earth.

It's pretty serious to start out following Christ and then turn on him. I suspect it will more tolerable in Hell for an atheist than for church people who do that.

§. Heb 6:4-8 . . It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

. . Soil that soaks up the rain often falling on it, and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed, receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

§. Heb 10:28-29 . . He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Jesus labeled Judas a "son of perdition" (John 17:12). The Greek word for perdition is apoleia (ap-o'-li-a) which has been variously translated waste, destruction, perish, die, and damnable. Perdition is usually always associated with the Bible's hell.

§. Phil 1:28 . .And in nothing be intimidated by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.

§. 2Thss 2:3-4 . . Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

§. 1Tim 6:9 . . But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

§. Heb 10:39 . . But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

§. 2Pet 3:7 . . But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of irreverent men.

§. Rev 17:8 . .The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition

§. Rev 17:11 . . And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

In other words; Mr. Judas was a demon's seed; pure and simple. The poor man was born with one foot in Hell the very minute he exited his mother's birth canal. Although Judas was a hopeless case, he wasn't totally useless. His evil nature came in very handy at just the right moment in history; just as that obtuse Pharaoh's did in the book of Exodus.

The problem is that people have only one life to work with; and that one life is already ear-marked for Adam's sin.

§. 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

The longer we live, the more sins we add to our record for which we must receive retribution. Your life is already ear-marked to satisfy justice for Adams' sin, so you have absolutely nothing with which to satisfy justice for additional sins that you yourself commit on your own. You're not only over-budget on sins, but your life-account is under-funded and you don't have near enough left in your account with which to pay for your own sins. So then, you desperately need a bail-out, because the cost of escaping the wrath of God is very high.

§. 1Pet 1:18-19 . .For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were ransomed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

A common New Testament Greek word for save is sozo (sode'-zo); which means: to rescue and/or protect.

I could go on and on giving example of rescuer after rescuer; but I think you get the idea. The New Testament's Jesus is like that: he rescues people from the wrath of God— people who not only fully deserve Hell, but definitely in line to go there.

§. Matt 20:28 . .The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

§. 1Tim 2:5-6 . .For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all

The New Testament Greek word for redemption is lutrosis (loo'-tro-sis); which means: a ransoming.

Webster's defines ransom as a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or some thing from captivity.

The annual animal lives that Aaron paid for his constituents sins weren't enough. Every year he had to go through Yom Kippur all over again because the Jews kept right on sinning and kept right on needing to pay more and more ransoms for their sins because the value of animal life is far too minimal. The moment Yom Kippur was over, the Jews began accumulating sins towards the next Yom Kippur.

In contrast; Jesus' life is of such infinite worth that God's son needed to offer himself as a ransom for his own constituents just the one time.

§. Heb 10:11 …Day after day every Levitical priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

So for the people of God relying upon Jesus as their priest instead of Aaron, there is no annual day of atonement, because Jesus' one-time offering of his own life's blood was sufficient to ransom the people of God permanently— forever.

The ransom is a donation; a gift of friendship from God's house to yours. It costs you nothing.

If the redemption you possess at the moment can be either lost or forfeited, then you don't have an eternal redemption; no, you have some other kind.

My point is this: Catholicism cannot guarantee anybody a safe passage to the afterlife, no, not even for its Popes; nor even for an outstanding nun like Teresa of Calcutta (a.k.a. Kolkata). Don't you see? Catholicism doesn't recognize an eternal ransom; ergo: Rome's constituents are really no better off in regards to redemption than Aaron's because once an eternal ransom is paid, those once held prisoner should never again be in danger of re-captivity because the ransom is always on hand to guarantee their freedom— and the ransom's custodian in this particular situation is Almighty God; so it's not going to get lost, or slip through a crack.

§. Heb 10:1-4 . .The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming— not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Beasts can't ransom a human being because a beast's life isn't equal in value to a human being's life. According to Gen 1:27, God created Man in His own image. That places the value of human life far and away above the value of creatures in the animal kingdom. Man is, in point of fact, a kind of divine being in his own right (Gen 1:27-28, Ps 82:1-8, John 10:34-36). So then, since Man was made in the image of God, then only a God Being can truly stand in for Man's retribution.

Even today, in modern times, Jews take a day out of the year on Yom Kippur to reflect on their past sins because Moses' Law doesn't permit them to forget what they are, nor to forget what they've done. But under the terms of the new covenant, the people of God are encouraged to put it all behind them.

§. Jer 31:34b . .For I will forgive their iniquities, and remember their sins no more.

§. Heb 10:11 …Day after day every [Levitical] priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

In regards to perfection, there is now no more of anything that beneficiaries of Christ's crucifixion can do to make themselves any more suitable to participate in Messiah's future. However, holiness is something else again, but I won't go into that portion of the passage at this time because it regards piety and fellowship with God, rather than obtaining a pass to Messiah's kingdom.

Particularly note the phrase: "by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever" those who are being made holy. Jesus' death completely deleted every sin that believers are ever going to commit for the rest of their lives. If that were not true, then it would be necessary for him to die over and over again for each new sin— just like the Levitical priests offering the same sacrifices day after day. But that is not going to happen because Jesus offered himself only just that once; and it was good enough.

§. Heb 9:25-26 . .Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Again, the author's audience is reminded of the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice. Believers don't build themselves a criminal record, nor are they encouraged to beat themselves over the head in affliction and sorrow for their sins. It's as if whenever believers commit a sin— they don't. (I'll get into the purpose of confession up ahead). Some may call that a license to steal. Well, a license to steal just happens to be the only sure-fire way anybody is going to escape retribution. However, believers are exhorted to avoid taking advantage of their license to steal as a license to continue living a life out of harmony with God (Rom 6:1-22, Rom 12:1-2, Gal 5:13).

There are Catholics who truly believe that Jesus' blood only works on sins that are confessed. But that is not what that passage in Hebrews is saying. It's saying "perfected forever" it's not saying perfected for the time being.

Point being: Rome cannot provide its constituents eternal perfection via a one-time ritual. If it could, then no Catholic, not one, would go to Hell. Rome does not accept Jesus' crucifixion as a guaranteed ransom from the wrath of God. No, it only sees his blood as a basis for absolving confessed sins rather than a guaranteed, commandment proof, God proof, sin proof, ransom from the wrath of God and full time protection from future retribution; viz: Rome isn't listening to Jesus' message.

§. John 5:24 . .Truly, Truly, I say unto 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.

OBJECTION : Your whole argument is false. Jesus' words "he that endureth to the end shall be saved" clearly indicates that people have to remain faithful to the very last if they hope to escape the wrath of God.

(chuckle) I just love it when disbelievers attempt to use The Lord's own words to refute his own words.

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

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

The word *never is from the Greek words ou me (oo may) which is a double negative strengthening the denial; viz: not at all. Webster's defines *never as: not ever, at no time, not in any degree, not under any condition

First off, it's important to know that Catholics are forbidden, under the penalty of a curse, to have any confidence in themselves in the area of perseverance.

Council of Trent, Canon 16 . . If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

Let's face it: what Catholic has even managed to persevere in exemplifying the Beatitudes, let alone the remainder of the Sermon on the mount? Answer: none. So then, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the objector has already failed to make the cut in the perseverance category.

Now; let's say you were a sheep instead of a Catholic. Whose responsibility is it then to make sure you persevere to the end? You the sheep? No, not you the dumb little stupid prone-to-wander sheep; but rather; he the competent Shepherd.

§. Isa 53:6 . .We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and Yhvh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

§. John 10:14-15 . .I am the good shepherd . . and I lay down my life for the sheep.

§. John 10:28-30 . .No one will snatch them away from me, for my Father has given them to me, and He is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me.

You see, when people put the responsibility for perseverance in their own hands, they are actually casting a vote of no-confidence in Jesus' and his Father's trustworthiness and competence as shepherds.

Canon 16 is right on, and I fully agree with it. However, though no Catholic will persevere, the good Shepherd's sheep will all persevere because he will see to it himself personally. All the rest of the "work out your own salvation" crowd are guaranteed to utterly fail because they have no shepherd.

§. Phlpns 1:6 . .Being confident of this very thing: that He which has begun a good work in you will see it through to completion until the day of Jesus Christ.

It's very important to make a clear distinction between Jesus' crucifixion and a standard atonement in order to fully appreciate just how effective his sacrifice really is— in not just purifying but, in separating a sinner from himself as well as from his sins.

The very first place that the Hebrew word for atonement shows up in the Old Testament is Noah's ark. God told him to coat the ark with bitumen within and without (Gen 6:14). The word for bitumen is kopher (ko'-fer) which means: a cover or a coating. The very same word is used numerous times in Moses' covenanted law for atonement, and never means to remove or to delete.

Jesus' crucifixion goes way beyond the capacity of an atonement. His death doesn't just cover sins, no, his death deletes sins; in point of fact, his death goes even further than that. Proxy participation in Christ's crucifixion is lethal and actually deletes the sinner who commits the sins.

§. Rom 6:3 . .Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

The "old man" is the obsolete man; viz: the first Adam; viz: the original human race. There now exists a second human race— totally unrelated to the original human race —that the Bible calls the new man; a.k.a. the last Adam.

§. 1Cor 15:42-50 . .So it is written; the first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The supernatural did not come first, but the natural, and after that the supernatural. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

Everything about me as a first-Adam man is now reckoned judged, condemned, executed, and dead on Heaven's books. My body is dead, and the me that I am is dead too; lock, stock, and barrel: accounted all gone, obliterated; thanks to Christ's crucifixion.

§. Rom 6:8-10 . .Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

§. Col 3:1-4 . .Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

When redeemed people leave this life, they shed their old selves like a dead skin by a power of God that I really do not quite understand, and go into the future as brand spanking new selves. This is already on the books as a done deal; so now it's only a matter of time before it becomes a practical reality.

§. Col 2:11-12 . .and in him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with him through faith in the operation of God, who raised him from the dead.

Christ is the prototype of the new selves. By studying him, the redeemed can get a pretty good idea of who, and what, they'll be on the other side. Everybody starts out on earth as chips off the first-Adam block; but in Heaven, I will be a chip off the last-Adam block.

Although beneficiaries of the new covenant are already completely acquitted of their entire lifetime of sin, and look forward to implementation of the promise of a sinless psyche as per Jer 31:31-34 and Ezk 36:24-28; they still need to confess their sins in a timely manner while they live down here on the planet in an Adamic situation— but not so's they can go to Heaven; no, not that at all. The purpose of a believer's confession is *fellowship which is derived from the Greek word koinonia (koy-nohn-ee'-ah which means partnership.

One aspect of fellowship is that of two or more parties working together in harmony towards a common cause.

§. 1John 1:3 . .We are telling you about what we ourselves have actually seen and heard, so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

The pronouns we, ourselves, us, and our in that passage refer to the apostles. So then, their message has the potential to effect a fellowship with the apostles. But everybody who refuses their message, walks in darkness and has no fellowship with either the apostles, or with the Father, or with the Father's son— Jesus Christ.

§. 1John 1:5-6 . .This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

§. 1John 1:7 . .But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His son, purifies us from all sin.

So then, in order to protect and maintain a consistent partnership with God, it's necessary to wash up in a timely manner.

§. 1John 1:8-10 . .If we say we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and refusing to accept the truth. But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong. If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts.

Here's an example of the concepts of partnership and non-partnership. Abraham and his nephew Lot were both righteous men (2Pet 2:7) and neither went to Hell. But of the two, only Abraham lived in fellowship with God. Thus divine providence worked to Abraham's benefit— but not so for Lot; no, there was no providence because he went out on his own down there to the city of Sodom; and there's no record of his ever praying and building altars like his uncle did; and even when Yhvh advised him to flee into the mountains to escape Sodom's destruction; Lot resisted and went to a nearby town instead.

My point is: Catholicism cannot guarantee its confessees safety in between confessions, because it doesn't accept the purpose of confession as merely a means of preserving harmony between God and the adopted children in His own home. No, its teachings revolve around something called a state of grace; without which one cannot go to Heaven. According to Rome's teachings; a state of grace is achieved by the rank and file primarily via confession. Thus the New Testament's teaching of proxy participation in Christ's crucifixion, and the circumcision made without hands, is simply brushed aside in favor of a temporary kind of safety that is easily lost between confessions.

The longer a Catholic goes in between confessions; the greater their danger of going to Hell because a Catholic's safety doesn't really depend upon the kindness and generosity of God, nor upon Jesus' competence as a rescuer, nor upon Jesus' one-time-only offering of his own self for Man's ransom from the wrath of God; but rather, upon their own personal state of grace.

FIY: It's very important when studying the New Testament's epistles to pay strict attention to the antecedents of pronouns like we and our and us because they rarely, if ever, refer to ordinary rank and file pew warmers or to just anybody who happens to be looking in. No, they typically relate to a specific people group whom the authors often identify as "brethren" viz: their fellow believers. Genuine believers are all siblings (Rom 8:29, 1John 3:1-2).

The entire epistle of 1John is really none of a Catholic's business because that particular letter wasn't written to ordinary rank and file pew warmers, no, it was written and sent to believers currently in possession of eternal life. Note the tense of the "have" verb in this next verse: it's in the present tense, not future.

§. 1John 5:13 . .I write this to you who believe in the Son of God, so that you may know you have eternal life.

So then, any Catholic who doesn't currently possess eternal life, is currently not believing in the Son of God; and according to God's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to His son; those Catholics are quite Christless.

§. 1John 5:11-12 . .He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

And according to Jesus' testimony; Catholics who lack eternal life abide in Death, and are in grave danger of the wrath of God.

§. John 5:24 . .Truly, Truly, I say unto you; those who heed my message, and believe in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already transferred from Death into Life.

Pew warmers who don't believe in the possibility of obtaining eternal life right now— in this life prior to dying and crossing over to the other side —insinuate that the Bible's God is a dishonest person of low moral integrity who cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

Ascetic religions (e.g. Roman Catholicism) have created thousands of warped psyches and totally unnecessary guilt complexes by their unbiblical attitudes 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.

The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which means: to set the heart upon.

Before proceeding; I think it might be a good idea to emphasize that it's illegal for a Jew to either edit, embellish, or amend Moses.

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

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

The Lord was a Jew. So then, had he attempted to modify Moses in any way; Jesus would have incurred a curse upon himself.

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

In point of fact, had the Lord modified Moses in any way, he would have demoted himself to the rank of least in the kingdom.

§. Matt 5:19 . . Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Far too many poorly-trained Christians are going around saying that the Lord went beyond Moses; but really all he did was expound rather than expand; and he was fully qualified to expound by none other than God Himself.

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

To begin with: God blessed men with fertility; and gave them the go ahead to reproduce.

§. Gen 1:28 . . And God blessed them, and God said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply

Well; I can easily assure you that sans a normal libido, men wouldn't breed with women because in that event, the ladies would have like zero sex appeal; and men would see women for what they really are: just naked apes. For an experiment; next time you're at the zoo; take a look at some of the primates and ask yourself: Why is it that men, as a rule, have no desire to mate with baboons and orangutans? Well; it's because men have human libido; which is a category of libido that responds only to human females rather than the females of meerkats and/or canada geese. In other words: libido isn't sinful; on the contrary: it's species-specific, and it's absolutely essential to the survival of the race.

Now; since it's illegal for a Jew to modify Moses in any way; then what does Matt 5:27-28 really mean?

Well; the Lord didn't invent a new rule: he merely expounded an old one; which is this:

§. 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.

Neither Ex 20:17 nor Matt 5:27-28 condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, those passages condemn premeditated adultery— which eo ipso implies conspiracy to commit adultery —and it's important to note that adultery is a sin committed with married people; not with single people. Adultery involves at least one married person in the affair. Single people sleeping together aren't adulterers; they're just immoral.

Jesus' teaching isn't about the so-called evils of sexual desire, but about scheming to sleep with a married woman. For a man to even have a plan like that in his head is the same as having already implemented it. But as far as I know, it's okay for men to drool over married women all they want as long as they don't start scheming on one fully intending to actually have an affair with her and taste the goods.

Webster's defines "scheme" as: a plan or program of action. The act of scheming is the adultery, not the feelings and fantasies.

§. 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 carnal lusts, but rather, upon making provision to fulfill those carnal lusts; which has the distinction of being the correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.

So then, are Moses and Jesus 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.

For example: in the novel 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.

I sincerely hope there's a Jew out there somewhere in cyberspace watching this discussion and seeing for themselves that Christianity's Christ neither modified Moses nor overruled him. No, Christ fully complied with Moses. The problem is: the rabbis of Jesus' day were inept and had nary a clue what they were talking about: nor did their students; and it appears to me that a pretty good number of today's Christian sunday schools don't either. Well; that wouldn't have happened in Ezra's day I can assure you.

§. Neh 8:7-9 . . Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people

NOTE : You know, it's ironic that traditionalists preach and preach about Adam's fall while glossing over the fact that his first impulse after eating the forbidden fruit was to cover his pelvic region. And why would he do that? Answer: because he became 1) self conscious about his appearance, and 2) he felt guilty about his feelings in connection with sex and the human body, that's why.

Every time a traditionalist gets up on a soap box and preaches about the evils of erotic fantasies and the sinfulness of sexual urges, desires, and feelings; all they're really doing is justifying their fig leaves and revealing their own Adam-given guilt complex in connection with sex and the human body. In the beginning, man felt neither shame nor guilt in connection with sex and the human body whereas now he's riddled with it. Man's guilt complex is so ingrained that he actually welcomes the traditional interpretation of Matt 5:27-29 as a means of saying: "I knew it! Fascination with sex and the human body is wrong; just as I thought". Well of course that's what he thought because he got that thinking from a fallen Adam, rather than from an innocent Adam.

Most Christians are totally unaware that their subconscious guilt complex in connection with sex and the human body has a powerful influence upon the way they interpret not only Matt 5:27-28, but also upon the way they interpret every other passage in the Bible related to sex, the human body, and one's physical appearance.

In point of fact, without their realizing it, they are actually shoe-horning their guilt complex into Christ's teachings, and it's blinding them to the words, grammar, and syntax of his comments, thus causing them to miss that he was actually introducing nothing new in the Sermon On The Mount, but merely reiterating the sixth and the tenth commandments in a way that the rabbis of his day didn't usually do.

NOTE : I think it's very significant that Eve didn't make herself a fig-leaf blouse. You know, even today in primitive cultures, women are topless and nobody thinks anything about it. So then what does that tell me? It tells me that civilized cultures are even more self-conscious, and even more guilt-ridden about sex and the human body than Adam and Eve were.

§. Rev 3:18 . .I counsel thee to buy of me . . . white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear

What's he saying? That nakedness is shameful? (chuckle) No, were it shameful, God would have created Adam and Eve fully clothed. No, what he's saying is, that if you can't stand before Christ exposed in full frontal nudity and feel perfectly at ease, then you are a sinful being because innocent beings feel no self consciousness in full frontal nudity.

§. Gen 2:25 . . And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

So then, what's represented by the white raiment? Some would say it's the righteousness of Christ; and I fully agree; but we need to flesh that out a bit. In practicality; the righteousness of Christ is innocence.

Does reading this section make you squirm? And what does that say about you? It says you are unable to be objective about sex and the human body; but rather, you are self conscious: you are fallen.

§. Gen 3:8-10 . . And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Question: If I look upon bacon & eggs with lust, have I committed breakfast in my heart?

Only if you fully intended to sit down and eat. So then, if the bacon & eggs were taken away before you had a chance to put them in your mouth, you would still be guilty of eating them anyway because according to Jesus, commission of sin is just as much in the intent as in the act. In any interpretation of covetousness and lust, intent is the key determinant of whether the covetousness and lust are sinful. If the bacon & eggs were rightfully yours to eat, it would not be sin to intend to eat them. However, if they were not yours to rightfully eat, then your intent would be theft.

Question: If I rent a porn video tonight and pleasure myself while watching it; would I be commiting a sin even though I have no intention of contacting the actresses for real-life sex?

According to CCC 2396 it would be a sin. However, the CCC is a proprietary document, and as such, cannot be accepted as a guideline by serious students of the Bible.

Self-stimulation isn't specifically addressed in the Bible. For that reason, it falls under the guidelines for debatable issues in chapter 14 of Romans.

§. Rom 14:1 . . Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

What constitutes a "weak" faith? It's when somebody is not sure one way or the other whether something is okay for Christians.

§. Rom 14:14 . . But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

§. Rom 14:22-23 . . So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

For some Xians, self-stimulation is perfectly normal and natural, while for others it is a form of adultery, immorality, and promiscuity. Let your own personal conscience guide you in gray areas; and don't ever let imperious Christians make the rules for you. Christians have but one Master; and it is his sovereign right to make the rules for his own people. Imperious Christians usurp Christ when they dictate rules of conduct for others to follow.

§. Rom 14:4 . . Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls.

Webster's defines a "bigot" as: a person obstinately, and/or intolerantly, devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. In other words, a bigot is somebody who is absolutely certain that no one else's opinions but their own can possibly be right.

§. Pro 26:12 . . Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

Webster's defines "conceit" as: excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue.

We would seem to have a contradiction; but no. The problem stems from peoples' concept of covetousness; plus their unawareness that no less than three koiné Greek words are translated by the English words lust and covet.

The koiné Greek word for "covet" in Heb 13:5 is aphilarguros (af-il-ar'-goo-ros) which means: unbridled avarice; viz: greed and/or the ambition to amass riches.

The word for "covet" in 1Cor 12:31, and 1Cor 14:39 is zeloo (dzay-lo'-o) or zeleuo (dzay-loo'-o) which means: to have warmth of feeling. for or against

The word for "lust/covet" in Rom 7:7 and Matt 5:27-29 is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which means: to set the heart upon; viz: long for.

Epithumeo is not simply imagining erotic fantasies and feeling sexual urges when you look at another man's wife; no, epithumeo means you are determined to find an opportunity to sleep with her; viz: to taste the goods.

§. Jer 5:8-9 . .They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbor's wife. Shall I not visit for these things? saith Yhvh: and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?

Any discussion of erotic fantasies has got to include the Christ of Christianity's feelings about women.

According to main-line Christianity, Christ was fully man: viz: 100% human. So then, if Christ was really 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, Jesus—as a 100% human —would have had the psychology of a straight human male. Thus, Jesus would have not only been fully able to reproduce; but no doubt would have liked to given the opportunity.

I believe Jesus was fully man too, so then, it forces me to accept that the Bible's Jesus, 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. Jesus 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 Jesus, 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 Adam-given guilt complexes in connection with sex and the human body.

However, God created men with a desire to mate and to reproduce with women. Christians feel it's okay for Christian men to have those desires; but not okay for the Christian's Jesus to have them; and yet, they forever bleat that he's fully man. No, truth be, in their minds, the Christ of Christianity 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 I was 36, that verse tells me David's son 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 Christianity's Christ a hypocrite? I mean, if some of my Catholic opponents are 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 Jesus evade the condemnation of his own words?

Is anyone beginning to see now just how ridiculous and impractical that traditional Christianity's interpretation of Matt 5:27-28 really is? If traditional Christianity's interpretation of Matt 5:27-28 were correct; it would actually put Christianity's Christ in grave danger of eternal suffering for breaking the sixth and tenth commandments; unless of course he underwent surgery to become a eunuch. That's 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 Jesus 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

Sometimes an isolated teaching like Matt 5:27-28 contains a principle that can be applied to other areas; e.g. bank robbery. I would love very much to have every dollar they have on-hand in the vault of the local branch of Bank of America. Does that make me a bank robber? No. But supposing I start casing the bank and figuring out a way to rob it. Does that make me a bank robber? Yes; because casing a bank and figuring out a way to rob it, is a bank robber's behavior. You see I'm okay with wanting BofA's currency just so long as I don't set a plan in motion to steal it.

I often have to remind people who believe themselves to be Christians that words and grammar are in the Bible for a purpose, and when people ignore the standard definitions of those words, and construe them to mean something other than what they're supposed to, then they're disconnecting themselves from reason and from education. Of what value is it to go to school and study the English language and its grammar if we are just going to throw it all out the window when we read the Bible?

Let me add, that even if I believed erotic fantasies were sinful, I would make absolutely no effort whatsoever to stop having them. No doubt in the Catholic mind, my attitude is defiant; but in my mind; it's self defense. Fighting against nature can lead to sleep deprivation, personality disorders, depression, and neurosis. I've rubbed shoulders with ascetic Christians, and I can tell you from personal experience that they have like zero influence for Christ and they are very defensive, bigoted, self righteous, despotic, intolerant, critical, imperious, and judgmental too. Well, I don't want to be like them, no, I prefer to be happy and well-adjusted. I do not want to be so heavenly minded that I'm of no earthly good.

Wine or grape juice? Well; due to the fact that the last supper was a Passover seder; which is consumed in springtime right around March and April when fresh grapes are generally unavailable in Palestine; and considering that 2,000 years ago nobody had refrigeration, I think we have to concede that the fruit of the vine in the last supper's cup was fermented; especially because one need not go to any particular trouble to make wine since grapes typically have enough indigenous yeast on their skins to start the process naturally.

§. Matt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

New wine (a.k.a. young wine) is quite sufficient to get people hammered (Acts 2:5-15) though old wine (a.k.a. aged wine) is generally considered the better quality of the two (Luke 5:39). Precisely why the Lord prefers a young wine to an aged wine; I have no clue.

Is it therefore mandatory that communion be served with fermented grape juice? Well; in Jesus' day they really had no choice about it at Passover time; but in our day we do. So I'd say that fermented grape juice is optional just so long as the beverage in the communion cup contains fruit of the vine.

FAQ : I cannot find a beverage stipulated on the Passover menu at Ex 12:1-10 so how is it that Jesus and his men were consuming wine at the last supper?

It's apparently a rabbinical tradition (Jerusalem Talmud; Pesachim 10:1) and each of the four cups that are consumed serve their own special purposes which I won't go into here except to express my curiosity as to which of the cups the Lord appropriated for his own purpose. Some feel it was the fifth cup— called the cup of Elijah —which is filled but not consumed.

It's a pretty harmless tradition since there's nothing in the language of Ex 12:1-10 strictly limiting the menu to only lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs. Anyway, Jesus was content to go along with it so I'd say it's okay. Although some of the Jews' traditions tend to annoy the Lord, he doesn't condemn them all; just the ones that blatantly circumvent and/or overrule God's expressed wishes.

FAQ : Since unleavened bread is stipulated for the Passover seder; then shouldn't the beverage be unleavened too?

There are some folk who insist that fermented grape juice is leavened because of its yeast content; but even if that were true it wouldn't matter anyway because only the bread has to be unleavened during a feast whose focus is upon unleavened bread.

§. Gen 19:3 . . He prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

Lot's is the very first mention of unleavened bread in the Bible and it won't show up again until Exodus 12:8 in the Passover meal.

The Hebrew word for "unleavened" is matstsah (mats-tsaw') which means, specifically: an unfermented cake or loaf; in other words: bread made with sweet dough rather than sour dough.

It's easy to make sour dough bread without the addition of cultured yeast simply by putting fresh dough in a warm place and letting nature take its course because even fresh non-yeasted dough contains a quantity of its own natural yeast which will cause fresh dough to go bad all by itself over time without the addition of cultured yeast. So it's not the yeast content that categorizes bread as leavened or unleavened; it's simply whether the bread is made with spoiled dough or fresh dough.

§. 1Cor 5:6 . . Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

In the days prior to baking with cultured yeast, cooks kept a supply of spoiled dough on hand for mixing with fresh dough and thus considerably reduced the time required for fermentation by taking advantage of the spoiled dough's yeast content. They probably didn't know all that much about the properties of fungi in those days but one thing they did know was that when they mixed old dough with new and let it set for a bit, the blended batch tended to make a softer, puffier bread due to minute bubbles in the mix; which today we know is carbon dioxide.

But either way, bread with leavened dough takes longer to make because time has to be allotted for the yeasts to do their job. So if you're in a hurry to feed someone, then unfermented dough is the wiser choice; for example at Ex 12:1-11 the Lord's passover instructions dictate the use of unleavened bread no doubt due to the urgency of the Jews' departure from Egypt.

§. Ex 12:11 . . And thus shall you eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste

Point being, the Lord's last supper was a Passover seder: so the bread he blessed and broke for his men at Matt 26:26 was made with unfermented dough. But does that mean communion breads absolutely have to be made with unfermented dough too? Well; since Christ is a lamb without blemish or spot (1Pet 1:19) I recommend unfermented.

§. Matt 26:26-27 . .While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take and eat; this is my body. Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying: Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

§. 1Cor 11:23-25 . . For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said: Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me. In the same manner he also took the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.

I was an old school Catholic from 1944 to 1968 which was pre Vatican II. Only priests consumed the fruit of the vine in those days: viz: the congregation had zero contact with it— no dipping, dunking, tincturing, moistening, soaking, wicking, tasting, or even so much as kissing the cup; no, the congregation was given only the bread element. So then all those years I practiced the Lord's supper, my participation was half-baked; which is far more serious than the average rank and file pew warmer realizes

In other words; it's necessary to consume both the Lord's body and his blood in order to obtain eternal life; which means I was a dead Catholic.

§. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth; unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Thomas Aquinas came up with the bright idea that it's only necessary to consume one of the elements (he called them species) in order to be given credit for consuming the Lord's flesh and blood. But is that really the procedure that the Lord stipulated for his apostles? No: clearly, and without ambiguity, the Lord stated that his body is per the bread and his blood is per the cup; and I would just like to know why in God's good name Rome found it so difficult to comply with His son's wishes prior to Vatican II.

§. Luke 6:46 . .Why do you call me Lord and Master and not do the things which I say?

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

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

FAQ : Doesn't Matt 16:19 give the Lord's church the right to modify his communion procedures if it wants to?

The intent of Matt 16:19 is illustrated at Matt 18:15-18 and Acts 15:5-22. Elders in the Old Testament were given the very same powers (Deut 17:8-13). However, their powers never superseded God's.

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

§. Deut 5:29-30 . . Be careful, then, to do as the Lord your God has commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the path that the Lord your God has enjoined upon you, so that you may thrive and that it may go well with you, and that you may long endure in the land you are to possess.

§. 1Sam 15:22-23 . .Samuel said: has The Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of The Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

§. Acts 5:29 . .Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said: We ought to obey God rather than men.

§. Acts 4:19-20 . . Peter and John answered and said to them: Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.

In other words; there is but one God— not seventy Gods. And there is but one Lord of Christianity— not twelve Lords.

§. 1Cor 8:4-7 . .There is none other God but one. For though there be that are called Gods— whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) —but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge.

§. Jude 1:3 . . Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Think about it: if the apostles, or anybody else for that matter, were given the power to annul Christ's spoken word and/or to repeal, amend, and revise his wishes to suit themselves; we would now, in the course of 2,000 years, have a faith so convoluted that it would scarcely resemble "the faith once delivered unto the saints" and nobody would know what they're supposed to believe and practice. Christians wouldn't be anchored in a unifying religion; instead they'd be adrift and confused in an ever-changing, ever-adapting schismatic religion ruled by canon law and man-made traditions instead of explicit Christ's wishes.

No he won't. The Lord's faith, the one he inaugurated with his own blood; will be gone— replaced by a faith manufactured by men who were led to believe that Matt 16:19 somehow gave them the right to do so.

The importance of the correct procedure is paramount because; according to God's testimony as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to His own son: I and all the other pre Vatican II Catholics who were denied the fruit of the vine; were were deprived eternal life; and consequently deprived Christ too.

§. 1John 5:11-12 . . And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

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

Note the grammatical tense of the Lord's statement below. It's present rather than future; indicating that when somebody correctly consumes his flesh and blood, they're granted eternal life right then and there— no delay, and no waiting period.

Eternal life is a kind of life that can't die; which means that those who have it are 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.

Since eternal life is impervious to death, then its beneficiaries needn't fear losing it in between confessions.

§. 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.

In case the reader hasn't caught my drift yet; I'll spell it out. Since eternal life is a kind of life that's impervious to death, then once somebody gets it, there's no need for them to keep coming back to get it again, and again, and again because eternal life doesn't degenerate, or spoil, or evaporate, or ferment, or break down, or corrode, or lose its vitality, or wear out, or run down, or get old and/or die from disease, accident, crime, or malnutrition: nor does eternal life have either a shelf life, or an expiration date. Tens of millions of years from today, eternal life won't be any less fresh than it is right now and the reason for that is eternal life isn't just an existence; it's God.

§. 1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life: for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.

§. John 1:1-4 . . In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Since God is eternal; then it only stands to reason that His life would be eternal; and Jesus, though he was 110% human, had eternal life too.

§. John 5:26 . . For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,

But it's not my intent to stress the longevity of eternal life, but rather; the nature of eternal life; viz: its properties.

You probably understand the properties of human nature okay because you've been human all your life. But since you have never been God, it is therefore impossible for you to understand the properties of divine nature. What I'm saying is: eternal life doesn't make people God nor does it make them divine; but what it does do is enable them to be a chip off the old block; so to speak.

§. 2Pet 1:4 . . He has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature.

These benefits all hinge upon one correctly consuming the Lord's flesh and blood; which now leads me to discuss transubstantiation; which is defined as follows:

CCC 1376 . .The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

§. Gen 9:3-4 . . Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

"everything that lives and moves" includes humans. But lest people get the wrong idea; God added:

§. Gen 9:5-6 . . And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

In other words; it is against the creator's wishes to raise humans for food as if they were livestock, and it is also against his wishes to hunt humans as if they were game animals. The reason given is because doing so disrespects the name of God.

The thing to note is that just because Gen 9:3-4 is in the Old Testament doesn't eo ipso make it a Jewish law. In point of fact, there wouldn't even be any Jews till several hundred years after the Flood. No; this law is part of a covenant that God made with Noah's family and with every creature that came off the ark with him; viz: the covenant is universal; and extends to every soul of man that descends from Noah: both Jew and Gentile.

§. Gen 9:8-9 . . Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you.

§. Gen 9:19 . .These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.

The restriction is against lifeblood. So then blood that cannot support life— dead blood —is exempt. Lifeblood is actually blood that's viable; viz: blood that hasn't begun to spoil. In other words: it's still fresh enough for a transfusion and contains enough active ingredients to carry oxygen and heal wounds.

Gen 9:3-4 creates a huge problem for people who believe in the so-called "real presence" because according to Rom 6:9, Christ rose from the dead immortal; which means that his blood cannot be killed. In other words: when people eat real presence, they are eating lifeblood; which is a clear violation of Gen 9:3-4.

§. Acts 15:19-21 . . I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

Were I a conscientious Jew, schooled in Moses' covenanted law, I would be utterly disgusted by a religion that eats blood in the name of God when that same God so clearly forbids it at Gen 9:4 and Lev 7:26. Hence the Jerusalem council's ruling which states, in principle, that Christians ought to abstain from blood consumption like transubstantiation in order to avoid discouraging Jesus' Jewish countrymen from buying into the cross.

Just think how awful it would be to some day find out that your own sacred religious practices actually led to one or more of Jesus' Jewish countrymen snubbing the cross and thereby going to hell because of your addiction to human blood. It's a terrible thought.

§. 1Tim 2:3-4 . . God our savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

§. Rom 14:15-17 . . If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

§. Rom 14:21 . . It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

§. 1Cor 10:31-33 . . So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Gentiles, or the church of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

Lev 7:26-27 was especially applicable to the apostles because according to Heb 9:16-17, the new covenant wasn't ratified until Christ died. So then, the night of his last supper, both the Lord and his apostles were still under the jurisdiction of the old covenant when Jesus made the pronouncements located at Matt 26:26-28. The old covenant strictly forbids Jews to eat any manner of blood. So then, had the Lord actually fed his men transubstantiation prior to his death, then he would have been responsible for leading them to overstep their own God-given religion's boundaries; and thus relegated himself to the status of least in the kingdom of God as per Matt 5:19.

Just for the sake of argument; let's assume for the moment that transubstantiation is valid. What are the ramifications of that? Well; for one thing, when proselytes complete their First Holy Communion, it would be not only their first; but also their last because of the quality of the life they would obtain from it.

Eternal life is the breath of God; viz: it's an infinite kind of life that's impervious to time, decay, death, and the aging process whichi is why eternal life's receivers need to obtain it only once rather than several times over. So then, it isn't necessary to replenish eternal life from time to time because infinite life never weakens or wears out. If that were not true, then God would have died of natural causes long before now. According to 1John 1:1-2, eternal life is what keeps God living forever; and I seriously doubt that He has to dine upon Jesus' flesh and blood from time to time to sustain it.

Think about it. How many times must your mother and father give you human life in order for you to go on living? Answer: just once because that one dose of human life will sustain you for the rest of your life. Well; transfer that thought to eternal life and you'll readily see why it's necessary to obtain it only one time, and one time only. However, with eternal life, there is no "rest of your life" because eternal life is a quality of life that's impervious to time, decay, death, and the aging process.

Well of course the Lord's sheep will never perish because eternal life is imperishable; viz: if the kind of life you are obtaining from the Eucharist is perishable, then it isn't eternal; no, it's an inferior quality of life vulnerable to time, decay, death, and the aging process: the same as human life— in point of fact, the same as all other forms of life on earth.

When people insist that they have to replenish their supply of eternal life on a weekly basis what they are suggesting is that if someone goes too long in between doses of Jesus' flesh and blood, the eternal life they obtained from previous doses will wear off; sort of like coming down from a hit of methamphetamine. In other words; they're suggesting that eternal life is similar to an organic substance that in time passes through your system.

Some even insist that sin can erode eternal life; but since eternal life is impervious to time, decay, death and the aging process; then it's eo ipso impervious to the law of sin and death.

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

Since people with eternal life are impervious to the wages of sin, then they eo ipso have immunity; viz: they needn't ever again fear hell for their sins.

§. 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.

OBJECTION: What you're saying is preposterous. If people had eternal life; wouldn't that make them eternal beings like God?

Adam and Eve were the same species; so their joining was a unification of the same flesh rather than cross-breeding the flesh of two different critters like a goat and a cassowary. Theirs was also a unification of nature. Though men and women behave, speak, and think somewhat different than each other at times, both are governed by human nature rather than the nature of a fruit bat or a salamander.

Jesus and his Father are unified (John 10:30). However, theirs obviously isn't a unity of flesh; but of spirit. The same is said about the unity of Jesus and his sheep (1Cor 6:17, Eph 5:31-32). Jesus prayed that the unity with which he was unified with his Father might unify his followers (John 17:11-23). Jesus' wish is accomplished by giving his followers eternal life. (John 17:2)

If I change the wording of John 17:2 to read "divine nature" as per 2Pet 1:3-4, then we get a little better understanding; viz: eternal life doesn't make Jesus' followers eternal beings, it just makes it possible for them to be one with God like human nature makes it possible for men and women to be one with each other.

Were I invited to speak to a Catholic catechism class; I would select as my subject eternal life because I know from experience that the average rank and file pew warmer doesn't know the difference between eternal life and immortality.

According to John 5:26-27 and 1John 1:1-2 Jesus had eternal life when he was here. However, according to Rom 6:9 he didn't obtain immortality until his resurrection.

In the same manner: according to John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, and 1John 5:13 believers have eternal life right now— no delay and no waiting period. However, according to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:35-54, believers won't have immortality until their resurrections.

So then, as with Jesus, a believer's eternal life has zero to do with the longevity of a human body; viz: eternal life is a spirit kind of life as opposed to immortality which is a physical kind of life. So; the million-dollar question is: From whence do believers obtain this spirit kind of life? Answer: by undergoing the birth about which Jesus spoke at John 3:3-8.

§. John 3:6 . . Flesh gives birth to flesh, but The Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Spirit that's born of The Spirit is invisible. It cannot be seen by the unaided human eye with any more ease than seeing the vacuum of space. In point of fact, it's quite possible to be standing right next to someone in an elevator car and not be able to detect that they have eternal life.

§. John 3:8 . .The wind moves about wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of The Spirit.

Just how important is the possession of eternal life? Well; according to God's testimony, as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to eternal life: people who lack it, lack His son; viz: they are quite christless.

§. 1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

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

OBJECTION: If one dose of Jesus' flesh and blood is enough, then why did he say at Luke 22:19 "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

Do the math. According to John 6:54, eaters of Jesus' flesh and blood obtain eternal life; which is an infinite quality of life that's impervious to time, decay, death, and the aging process. So then obviously the Lord's Supper as per Luke 22:19 and 1Cor 11:23-25 is not the correct way to eat Christ's flesh and/or imbibe his blood as per John 6:48-58

Jesus didn't say "do this in order to obtain eternal life" no; he said "do this in remembrance of me". In other words: the elements of the Lord's Supper serve as reminders of the terrible price he paid to ransom his followers' souls from the wrath of God.

OBJECTION: According to 1Cor 11:27, it's possible to be guilty of The Lord's body and blood. Being guilty of someone's body and blood is to be guilty of murder. How could one be guilty of murder if the bread and wine are only symbols?

What's Paul talking about there? Homicide? I seriously doubt it. According to Rom 6:9, Christ rose from the dead immortal so he can't be killed anymore.

I'm pretty sure the most anybody can reasonably get out of 1Cor 11:27 is just simply the sin of sacrilege; which Webster's defines as: gross disrespect for a hallowed person, place, or thing. Here's a version that best represents that concept.

"Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." (NIV)

A footnote in my electronic Catholic Bible interprets this particular sacrilege not as a homicide, but as a sin against the Lord himself— in other words: a personal insult. (cf. 1Cor 8:12)

OBJECTION: But 1Cor 11:29 says "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

§. John 3:16 . . God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

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

So then, the "damnation" spoken of in 1Cor 11:29 isn't hell; it's discipline— hell is for criminals; discipline is for soldiers and naughty children. And the purpose of discipline isn't to annihilate, but rather; to mold one's character and correct their conduct.

OBJECTION: But doesn't 1Cor 11:29 talk about "discerning" the Lord's body; viz: recognizing it?

If "recognizing the body of the Lord" really meant his physical presence, then those who dare to eat him are in violation of Gen 9:4, Lev 7:26, and Acts 15:29 unless they cook the Lord first in order to ensure that his flesh and blood are 100% dead before putting it in their mouths; and right there's a rub. According to Rom 6:9, Christ rose from the dead immortal; so that cooking his body to ensure it's dead before putting it in one's mouth would be futile; ergo: one would be eating his flesh and blood alive, which is strictly forbidden for both Jews and Christians to do.

According to John 5:26-27 and 1John 1:1-2 Jesus had eternal life when he was here. However, according to Rom 6:9 he didn't obtain immortality until his resurrection. So then, eternal life has zero to do with the longevity of a human body.

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

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

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

However, according to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:35-54, believers won't have immortality until their resurrections.

So then, as with Jesus, eternal life has zero to do with the longevity of a human body; viz: eternal life is a spirit kind of life. In contrast immortality is a physical kind of life. So; the million-dollar question is: From whence do believers obtain this spirit kind of life? Answer: by undergoing the birth about which Jesus spoke at John 3:3-8.

§. John 3:6 . . Flesh gives birth to flesh, but The Spirit gives birth to spirit.

§. John 3:8 . .The wind moves about wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of The Spirit.

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

Jesus stated at John 6:63 that the words he spoke about consuming his flesh and blood are spirit words rather than human words; which is problematic right out of the box because it says to me that the meanings of the Lord's choice of words are not always what they appear. Paul said the same thing about his own choice of words. Spirit words and human words sound the same, and they're spelled the same; but should never be assumed saying what the human mind thinks they're saying.

§. 1Cor 2:13 . .These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual

Therein is the very reason why the various denominations have so much difficulty all believing the same things; viz: spirit words are literally a foreign language; and as such eo ipso require the services of a competent interpreter— and good luck finding one of those because unless Bible students themselves are blessed with the anointing described at 1John 2:26-27, then they have no way of knowing if the interpreter upon whom they rely knows what they're doing. In point of fact, non-anointed Bible students are pretty much stuck with taking their interpreter's word for it— and if the blind lead the blind; shall not both fall into a ditch?

So then, since Jesus' body and blood are only spiritually represented in the elements rather than physically present, then 1Cor 11:20-29 has to be addressing an offense other than murder. The true offense was not murder, but rather, a gross lack of solemn appreciation for what Jesus voluntarily endured on the cross. Here's the wording from a version that brings out the true meaning.

§. 1Cor 11:20-29 . .When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! . . Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of The Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to soul-search himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body of The Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

What happened in the Corinthian church was that the members had expanded The Lord's supper into a fellowship buffet; thus totally losing sight of it's solemn intention of reminding them of the terrible price Jesus paid for their ransom from the wrath of God. You can just imagine how insulting that must be for Jesus and his Father; not to mention what it did to their feelings.

In one Conservative Baptist church I attended in San Diego, the Pastor wouldn't permit serving the elements till after he completed a solemn half-hour lecture on their purpose, including a word-for-word reading of Matt 26:26-29, and 1Cor 11:23-26, so that nobody had any excuse for assuming they were being served a gratuitous snack; and thus eat the bread, and drink the cup of The Lord in a thoughtless manner.

Some men name ranches, towns, factories, highways, buildings, and bridges after themselves. Others erect ostentatious grave markers. Jesus wanted nothing grand. He wanted to be remembered only by a humble meal consisting of a common bakery product and a nondescript vine-based beverage; and his followers should honor his wishes and not go beyond with cathedrals, religious art, gold chalices, and cities like the Vatican. That's not what Jesus wanted; and it's downright insubordinate to presume he did.

People who fail to correctly consume the Lord's flesh and blood are lifeless; viz: they're quite dead.

§. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

People without life in them are eo ipso omitted from the book of life. Consequently; they will be terminated in a special reservoir of liquefied flame.

§. Rev 20:15 . . If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

That information is reported in the grammatical past tense because John was given a glimpse into the future and saw for himself the lifeless dead being executed by a method somewhat akin to burning at the stake— and all because they failed to correctly consume the Lord's flesh and blood.

And since there is but one resurrection allotted per person (Dan 12:2, John 5:28-29) then nobody is coming back from that reservoir because they will have used up their one resurrection in order to face justice at the Great White Throne; and from thence they will go on public display like the bones exhibited in the La Brea Tar Pits museum in Los Angeles.

§. Isa 66:22-24 . . All humanity will come to worship me from week to week and from month to month. And as they go out, they will see the dead bodies of those who have rebelled against me. For the worms that devour them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never go out. All who pass by will view them with utter loathing.

§. John 8:1-6a . .Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the Temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus; Rabbi, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say? They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

That scene took place outdoors. Moses' covenanted law permits only Levitical priests to enter the house portion of the Temple facility. The acreage adjoining the Temple served as a sort of sacred town square, where just about anybody with the moxie and the wherewithal could set up a soap-box yeshiva and teach and/or preach, and vendors such as money changers and livestock and fowl dealers could set up for business. In those days, when Jews spoke of "God's house" the term always included the courtyard as well as the house, and the whole precinct was enclosed inside a very large retaining wall.

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

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

Moses mandates that adulterers be put to death— both the man and the woman —no excuses and no exceptions.

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

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

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

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

§. John 8:6-9 . . Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "He among you without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

Consequently; the case against her was dropped and she was free to go on about her business.

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

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

Because the Bible's Christ was here the first time as neither a god nor a judge— he was here as John Q Citizen and as such wasn't authorized to come down on his fellow Jews.

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

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

NOTE : that woman was very fortunate that the Lord had no mommy issues, or gender bias, or axes to grind with women. That incident could have gone very south for her under different circumstances.

In the Jewish culture of Christ's day, men were lenient with each other's sexual escapades, but severe and intolerant of women's. Even today, in sexually liberated America, it's common to call a promiscuous woman a whore; but to call a promiscuous man nothing of the kind. He's a stud; while she's a pig. That's just not fair. But in Messiah's future kingdom, fairness will be the keystone of his administration.

§. Ps 45:6 . .Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of equity will be the scepter of your kingdom.

§. Isa 9:7 . . Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.

A pretty good off-the-cuff definition of justice is: the application of law without passion or prejudice.

I think it was Mark Twain who commented that faith is a man believin' in somethin' he knows ain't so. (chuckle)

There are basically two kinds of faith out and about in the Christian sphere. One is a hope-so kind of faith. The other is a know-so kind of faith. The know-so kind is the best kind because the other kind is nothing in the world but wishful thinking.

Since there's a hope-so faith, and a know-so faith, then it only stands to reason that there are two kinds of hope: a hope-so hope, and a know-so hope. A know-so hope can be defined as anticipation; which is a pleasurable looking forward to something with the full expectation of obtaining it.

§. Heb 11:1 . .What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen.

§. 1Pet 1:3-6 . .All honor to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for it is by his boundless mercy that God has given us the privilege of being born again. Now we live with a wonderful expectation because Jesus Christ rose again from the dead. For God has reserved a priceless inheritance for his children. It is kept in heaven for you, pure and undefiled, beyond the reach of change and decay. And God, in his mighty power, will protect you until you receive this salvation, because you are trusting him. It will be revealed on the last day for all to see. So be truly glad! There is wonderful joy ahead, even though it is necessary for you to endure many trials for a while.

If the component of trust were to be removed from Peter's remarks, then that whole passage would become meaningless. But where do people get the kind of trust required to make that passage a comfort? Do they psyche themselves up? No; they don't have to psyche themselves up. God's Spirit, in some supernatural way that I do not fully understand, convinces them that Peter's comments are for their benefit.

§. Rom 8:15-16 . .For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again to fear, but you received a spirit of adoption by which we call out; Dad! Father. The Spirit himself testifies to our spirit that we are God's kin.

OBJECTION : But if Catholics follow everything that needs to be followed, and do everything that needs to be done, then shouldn't that give them a sense of security?

You would think so; but no, it doesn't work that way; and if you don't think so, then it's time for you to read a few of Mother Teresa's private letters published in the book below.

Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light
The Private Writings of the "Saint of Calcutta"
Edited with commentary by Brian Kolodiejchuk, M.C.
ISBN 978-0-385-52037-9

Teresa was an excellent Catholic in every respect; but her faith lacked the element of trust. In spite of her piety and selfless dedication; that poor woman was extremely sad and suffered with chronic feelings of doubt and alienation from God for more than five decades, right up to the hour of her death.

And anyway, Catholics are not permitted to have feelings of security no matter what their degree of piety.

Council of Trent: Canon 16. If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

Thus; Catholics are permitted to have only a wishful hope that fears there's a possibility they won't make it; viz: they have nothing to look forward to; but are simply wishing for the best; while in the backs of their minds dreading the worst; viz: their level of trust in God is zero in spite of Jesus' positive assurances.

§. 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.

Question: 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?

Before answering the question, I'd like to first point out that Jesus' church was not yet in existence when he spoke those words because the tense of "I will" is future tense. So it would be a gross error to assume the apostles were Christians just by virtue of their calling. They weren't; no, they were dyed-in-the-wool Jews who professed— as did their master —to believe and to practice Old Testament Judaism; which was, and which still is, the God-given, God-mandated religion for all natural-born Jews.

Jesus' reply was in response to one of Peter's previous statements. When Jesus asked; Whom do you believe me to be? Peter answered; I believe that you are the Christ, the son of the living God. That's when Jesus replied with a play on words by saying to him; You are petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.

The New Testament Greek word petros is the equivalent of the Aramaic word cephas, and means a rock or stone (as loose)

The New Testament Greek word petra means a rock mass; viz: bedrock (as immovable).

petros and petra share the same Greek root: petros is masculine (appropriate for a man's name), and petra is feminine (certainly not appropriate for a man's name). Although petros and petra share a root, they are two distinctly different nouns altogether. They share a root, but they do not share an equivalent meaning; viz: they are not synonyms.

Since those two words are nouns, rather than modifiers, then you can't possibly say that petros and petra are synonyms just because they share the same root. Nothing could be farther from linguistic reality. Those two Greek nouns clearly define two different kinds of rock. Petros rock is smaller in mass than petra rock. Petros rock is loose pieces of rock like stones and boulders; while petra rock is immovable like bedrock; a kind of rock that Webster's defines as: the solid rock underlying unconsolidated surface materials. 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

It's ideal to drive pilings down to bedrock when building high rise office buildings because bedrock is solid and won't give. But it's not a good idea to anchor in petros rock because petros rock cannot be relied upon to stay put under severely adverse conditions like powerful storms and earthquakes.

So then, what Jesus said was; "Peter, you are a piece of rock; but myself— Christ, the son of the living God —is the bedrock upon which my own church will be constructed."

In other words; Peter was a pretty tough guy, but not stable enough to serve as a foundation upon which to build something as important as Jesus' church. You could never say of Peter: "the gates of Hell will not prevail against him" because Peter fell apart under his very first temptation; and that by something as soft and frail as a couple of damsels (Matt 26:69-75).

§. 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.

OBJECTION : The language that Christ and the Apostles spoke was Aramaic; and in that language, Peter's name is Cephas e.g. John 1:42. Cephas means the Rock.

It wouldn't matter if the language Jesus spoke was Martian. The Gospels were written, not in Martian, but in a language common to the whole Roman world because Jesus commanded his apostles to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).

Nobody has ever proven the existence of a Matthew written in Aramaic by the original author; nor has a so-called original Aramaic manuscript of Matthew ever been quoted by early Christian authorities. Whether it ever existed cannot now be established with any degree of certainty. The oldest (and considered the best) Matthew manuscripts (including that of the Vatican Manuscript: circa 350-400 AD) are written in Greek.

Let's just say— for the sake of argument —that Matthew's version really was originally in Aramaic. Then whoever translated it into Greek surely must have used corresponding Greek words to express the original's Aramaic words. So then, unless the translators were blatantly dishonest (which would surely cast suspicion upon the Vatican Manuscript), the word petros for Peter, and the word petra for the site of Jesus' church, are both correct. Therefore, since there exists no good reason to believe otherwise, Bible students should feel confident it's perfectly safe to accept extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew as authoritative.

I think I know why the Holy Ghost inspired Matthew to use Greek words in his own Gospel rather than Aramaic. It's because his is the only Gospel of the four that contains the entire dialogue between Jesus and Peter. Mark and Luke record only excerpts.

The Holy Ghost is God, so then, the Holy Ghost could see down the road into the future and know ahead of time how Romanism was going to convolute the New Testament and construe Jesus' words to mean something they weren't supposed to; and in doing so, would draw attention away from the founder of New Testament Christianity and transfer the focus to one of his associates. To prevent that error from becoming a world-wide Christian falsehood, God's Spirit (the true custodian of Holy Writ) made sure that only Greek manuscripts of Matthew would be available. That way, nobody would have any excuse for getting it wrong.

OBJECTION : The Greek word petra is simply the feminine form of the word petros; so that petros and petra are essentially synonymous.

Greek doesn't work that way. We're not talking about modifiers we're talking about nouns.

If petros and petra meant the very same thing, then Matthew would simply have repeated Peter's appellation in Matt 16:18 to read like this:

In addition; the syntax looks weird if Peter is the base upon which Jesus was intending to construct his church. It would make far more sense to replace petros with a pronoun and word Matt 16:18 like the below if Peter were the rock of which Jesus spoke:

But that is not what Jesus said at all. People really have to stretch their imaginations in order to construe Jesus' words to mean something they don't say in writing.

According to John 1:42, cephas (used but six places in the New Testament; and always to indicate Peter) is the Aramaic equivalent of petros, but there are no Aramaic words in the New Testament equivalent to petra. The only person in the whole New Testament whom petra identifies is Christ (Matt 16:18, Rom 9:33, 1Cor 10:4, 1Pet 2:8).

I believe it is significant that Christ is not once referred to as cephas rock and stone, nor of petros rock and stone. He is only identified with either lithos, a nondescript kind of rock and stone (e.g. Matt 21:42-44) or petra, a specific kind of rock and stone (e.g. Rom 9:33).

Far too many Catholics miss the fact that Jesus is actually two kinds of rock and stone in the New Testament. Failure to recognize, and to properly apply, these two kinds of rock and stone has led Catholics to make the easily avoided error of putting Simon before Christ in the construction of Jesus' own church— literally having Christ the corner stone laid in position upon Peter as the base, instead of having Peter laid in position adjacent to Christ, and upon Christ, who is both corner stone and base.

§. 1Cor 3:1 . .For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

§. Eph 2:20 . .And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

At first glance, that verse appears to identify the apostles and prophets as the foundation of Jesus' church; but the editors' inserted punctuation is deceptive. It should read like this:

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets: Jesus Christ; himself being the chief corner stone"

In order for Catholicism to be correct in its interpretation of Matt 16:13-18, then those verses above would have to read like this:

"And are built upon the foundation of Peter, himself being the chief corner stone"

Question: If the Roman Catholic Church isn't the true church, then which one is?

§. Matt 16:18 . .And I also say to you that you are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church; and the gates of the netherworld shall not overpower it.

Note that I used the New Testament's Greek words for not only Peter but also for the rock upon which the "my" church is built so as not to confuse the "my" church with the Roman Catholic Church.

The word petra is never used to identify Peter; while it is used four times to specifically identify Christ (Matt 16:18, Rom 9:33, 1Cor 10:4, and 1Pet 2:8). Note that Peter himself identified Christ with petra in 1Pet 2:8; viz: Rome is built upon Peter, while the "my" church is built upon the New Testament's Christ.

§. John 5:24 . .Truly, Truly, I say unto 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.

§. John 10:27-30 . .My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, for my Father has given them to me, and He is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me.

It's amazing the number of professing Christians who sincerely believe it is possible to snatch one's own self out of God's hands. However, the words "no one" clearly preclude that possibility. What they are really doing by their disbelief is casting a vote of no-confidence in Jesus' and his Fathers' reliability as good shepherds who are fully capable of keeping their sheep safe in all manner of difficulties, circumstances, and conditions.

Eternal life is a kind of life that cannot die. So then, eternal life is invulnerable to the wages of sin. According to John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, John 6:54, and 1John 5:11-13, I have eternal life right now, no delay, and no waiting period. Therefore, I am impervious to the wages of sin.

§. Rom 6:23 . .For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

§. Rom 8:1-2 . .There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of The Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death.

Now do you see how Jesus could promise that the gates of the netherworld would not overcome the "my" church? It's because every one of the members of the "my" church have eternal life; which is a kind of life that not only cannot die, but is invulnerable to the wages of sin. If you were to meet a Roman Catholic who claimed they are invulnerable to the wages of sin, that would be very unusual.

OBJECTION : You Protestants worship the Bible as if itself were God. Matt 16:18 doesn't say; "upon this book I will build My church". Your God is a paper God: you worship the almighty printing press.

The Confraternity version, the Douay-Rheims version, and the New American version are three official Catholic Bibles produced by Catholic scholars, and sanctioned with Rome's imprimatur and nihil obstat; which means there is nothing in Rome's own versions harmful to Catholic beliefs and practices. Apparently the objector doesn't trust Rome's scholarship.

Catholics spit on God and His spirit when they ridicule use of the Bible as worshipping the almighty printing press while their own hierarchy regards the Bible as the word of God— inspired and authored by God.

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

As a professing Roman Catholic: do you, or do you not, agree with Rome's ruling that the Bible is:

To disagree with Rome, and oppose it's evaluation of the Bible, is to be an heretic.

The words that holy men spoke are so important that they were recorded for future generations. If the Good Book was unnecessary, then its writers wouldn't have been inspired by the Bible's God to pen it.

§. Rom 15:4 . .For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

§. 2Tim 3:15-17 . .from childhood you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

No book = no learning, no patience, no comfort, no hope, no wisdom, no salvation, no doctrine, no reproof, no correction, no instruction, no perfection, and no knowledge of what constitutes good and evil; ergo: if your religion isn't built upon the Good Book, then your religion is built upon sand, and will totally fail to protect you from the wrath of God.

§. Matt 7:26-27 . .And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

§. John 3:11-12 . .Truly, Truly, I am telling you what we know and have seen, and yet you won't believe us. But if you don't even believe me when I tell you about things that happen here on earth, how can you possibly believe if I tell you what is going on in heaven?

§. John 3:31-36 . .He has come from above and is greater than anyone else . . He tells what he has seen and heard, but how few believe what he tells them! Those who believe him discover that God is real. For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's Spirit is upon him without measure or limit . . All who believe in God's Son have eternal life. Those who don't will never experience life, but the wrath of God remains upon them.

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

§. 2Tim 4:2-4 . .Preach the word of God. Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching. For a time is coming when they will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear. They will reject the truth and follow strange myths.

§. Matt 16:18 . .I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

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

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

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

So then, what is Matt 16:18 saying? As I see it, from a strictly humanistic point of view, death is the end-all, you're not coming back, and there is nothing to expect beyond it: so, from a strictly humanistic point of view, death is a grim finality and no one can escape it's grip. I think what Jesus said in Matt 16:18 is that death doesn't end it all; so that death doesn't dissolve a person's existence in Christ's following— once you're in, you stay in even beyond the grave.

The "gates" of haides are equivalent to "the pit" in the Old Testament. (Hebrew word: shachath (shakh'-ath); which means a pit as a trap; figuratively: destruction)

To the ancient Jews, death was like a trap in that it's an utter ruination of a man's life from which no one can pull themselves free. But Jesus is saying there is an escape; and that the escape is to be had by being in his own following.

Gates are common structural components in jails and prisons. The gates of the netherworld are like the barred doors of individual cells in Folsom Prison. New inmates first pass through the main gate, then during processing, they pass though several secondary gates on their way to the gate that finally seals them in their cell. Inmates live by gates; gates are everywhere —and the gates aren't really meant to keep people out; but rather, to keep people in.

Bottom line is: if you want to be released from the default afterlife to a better life; Jesus is the man to see, just like Joseph was the man to see for grain when that awful seven-year famine devastated Egypt. Jesus' and Joseph's authority are very similar. It did very little good petitioning Pharaoh for grain because he delegated all that business to Joseph. In the same way, it does very little good to petition God as regards your status in the afterlife; He's just going to redirect you to Jesus, because Jesus is the one whom God has delegated for all that business.

§. John 6:37-40 . .All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will not drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

§. John 6:45 . .No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me persuades him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

§. John 17:1-3 . .For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

The New Testament Greek word translated *prevail at Matt 16:18, is katischuo; which means: to be strong to another's detriment, to be superior in strength, to overcome. The only other passage in the entire New Testament where katischuo is used is Luke 23:23; where Pilate did his best to persuade the crowd to let Jesus go, but completely failed to do so. He didn't succeed in persuading some and fail to persuade others. He persuaded nobody. He didn't even make a dent. With one voice, the crowd demanded Jesus' execution.

So that when Jesus said the gates of haides wouldn't prevail against his own following, he didn't mean the gates of haides would win some and lose some. He meant the gates of haides would fail to achieve any victories against his own following in any way at all. The gates of haides are supposed to suffer utter and thoroughly complete defeat, not just some defeat.

Therefore, since Rome cannot guarantee a sin proof, commandment proof, God proof, fail-safe ransom from from the wrath of God and full time protection from future retribution —neither for its popes nor even for an outstanding nun like Teresa of Calcutta (a.k.a. Kolkata) —it's painfully obvious Rome fully expects a number of its Catholics to remain behind the bars of hades forever.

Clearly then, the gates of haides are enjoying a measure of success; they haven't failed to prevail against Rome; no, quite the contrary: the gates of haides have been prevailing against it all along, and will continue to prevail. Rome is sustaining losses of its Catholics to eternal suffering; and those kinds of losses are not supposed to occur in the church of the New Testament's Jesus. He is not supposed to lose a single one of his sheep. They are supposed to be completely safe; and in absolutely no danger of eternal punishment.

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

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

OBJECTION : The Catholic Church is still here so the Devil hasn't prevailed against it. Matt 16:18 doesn't mean Satan can't harvest some individual members of Jesus' church.

Why do people always assume the gates of hades are the Devil? The netherworld is a containment; an enclosure like a walled city, or a huge vat with a lid on it; and it's not controlled by the Devil; no, on the contrary, it's totally controlled by God's son, so that if perchance one of his own sheep should somehow slip through a crack and find themselves incarcerated in the suffering zone of hades; its cell doors wouldn't be able to hold them. They'd just walk right out like as if going shopping or to the movies.

Therefore, if there is a chance, even the slightest possibility at all that you, as a Roman Catholic, might end up locked away in a Hell cell, it's only because you are neither one of Jesus' sheep, nor truly a member of his own following.

The Roman Church sometimes compares itself to Noah's Ark. But If Rome were truly a model of the Ark; then not one single Catholici would ever be in the slightest danger of Hell and eternal suffering because nobody aboard the Ark perished in the Flood. Yet Rome fully expects to lose a number of its Catholics to eternal suffering; which is contrary to the Ark as a model of protection from the wrath of God.

The reality is: Rome cannot guarantee anybody a safe passage to the other side— no, not even for its Popes nor even for an outstanding nun like Teresa of Calcutta. In point of fact, that poor woman went to her death, after five decades of missionary service, worried that, if perchance a God did actually exist, it didn't like her and might be quite disposed to condemn her to Hell.

Friday, April 8, 2005; millions of Catholics around the world— including Cardinals, Bishops, and Monsignors —prayed for Karol Wojtyla during his funeral that God would receive him into eternal life. That should set off every smoke alarm in the whole Catholic community! Why? Because if an outstanding Pope like Karol Wojtyla needs the prayers of millions of Catholics to give him hope of obtaining eternal life, then where does that leave rank and file pew warmers? It means they should begin preparing themselves for the worst when they cross over to the other side because that's very likely exactly what they're going to get in spite of their affiliation with Rome.

OBJECTION : Noah had the free will to jump off the Ark if he chose to do so, as did any member of his family. You can't hold Rome responsible for members who choose to leave.

Regardless of whether or not anyone aboard the Ark had the liberty to jump overboard and commit suicide, the fact remains that nobody on the inside of the Ark perished in the Flood; yet Rome fully expects to lose a number of its Catholics to eternal suffering; which is contrary to the Ark as a model of protection from the wrath of God.

To my knowledge, neither Karol Wojtyla nor Teresa of Calcutta were apostates, yet both went to their deaths unsure of their eternal destinies. The reality is: membership in the Catholic church does not eo ipso guarantee anybody a safe passage to the other side— no, not even for Popes nor even for an outstanding nun like Teresa of Calcutta; and certainly not for insignificant rank and file pew warmers.

Incidentally, nobody on the Ark, once inside, could jump overboard anyway because there was only one way in; and Yhvh personally sealed it Himself once everybody was aboard.

§. 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 translated "shut" is the very same word used for forcibly quarantining lepers in the 13th chapter of Leviticus. (cf. Eph 1:13-14 where God's spirit seals believers into Christ permanently)

I'm curious to know how that objector came to think that anybody in their right mind on the Ark would have even toyed with the idea of jumping overboard into the Flood and drowning themselves. Let me ask them something. If the bowels of Hell were to open at your feet this very minute; would you consider leaping down of your own free will? What if God were to give you a whole year to think about it; would you do it then? No, you would flee in utter panic to escape the dreadful blast of heat belching up from Hell's ovens to avoid losing all your hair and eyebrows, and sustaining third degree burns over every square inch of your body.

On an episode of a cable show called Dirty Jobs, its host went to a steel foundry to see what it's like to work around massive kettles of molten metal. They tasked him with removing a refractory core piece from one of the just-emptied kettles using a device called an oxygen lance. He was dressed head to toe with fire-proof materials, but nevertheless, in the 2,000+ degree heat radiating from the kettle, even with all the personal protective gear, he could work on the refractory core piece for only just a few minutes till the face shield attached to his helmet melted and his head and face started to literally cook. The foreman on the job lectured the host for overstaying the safe-exposure time limit.

All eight people aboard the Ark survived; which tells me that none of them were the damn fools that some people somehow think they could have been had they wanted to jump overboard. Moral of the story: if Rome could actually guarantee a safe passage to the other side, nobody in their right mind would ever defect. But lots of intelligent, sane people defect all the time. I once met a priest who's duties included serving masses inside the very Vatican itself; but one day came to a realization that his religion was plastic; and left it.

OBJECTION : "the ark: in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water" (1Pet 3:18-21). Note that the author of 1Peter got it all wrong. Noah and his family were not saved through water, but rather from water.

The author of Peter's first epistle wrote under the inspiration of God. Even if he himself did not agree with the term "through water" he still wrote it down just as he was inspired to write it rather than take the liberty to edit it in order to accommodate disbelievers.

The New Testament Greek word for "through" is dia (dee-ah') which is a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; viz: through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional)

A modern word that suffices for dia is via; which Webster's defines as: by way of and/or through the medium or agency of; and also: by means of.

Ironically, water was a source of death for the antediluvians while it was a source of life for Noah and his family. The same water that drowned the others, buoyed Noah and his family above it to safety. Wood floats; so Noah rode out the wrath of God like a child riding a little pony. The pony's hooves crushed everybody else like insects; while the same pony bore Noah upon its back where its hooves couldn't touch him.

§. 1Pet 3:17-22 . . For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that he might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in The Spirit; in which also he went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

. . Which corresponds to the baptism that now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience —through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him.

The baptism that Peter is talking about in that passage is not Christian water baptism. The reason I know that is because Noah didn't get wet. No, he was inside the Ark where the water couldn't touch him. The people who got wet drowned.

The "baptism" that now saves me is not water baptism, but rather, the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

§. 1 Cor 12:13 . .For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body— whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free

The Spirit's baptism put me "in" Christ where I rode out the judgment of God on the cross with Jesus. Just as the Ark took the brunt of God's anger for Noah, so Christ took the brunt of God's anger for me. The key word in this process is "in". It's necessary to be "in" Christ to benefit from his crucifixion because just as those on the outside of the Ark perished, so those on the outside of Christ are on a path to the reservoir of flaming liquid spoken of in Rev 20:11-15.

Wearing the Christian label is not the same thing as being "in" Christ. What I'm talking about here is a supernatural aspect of Christianity that can't be obtained by joining a church and getting baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. No, what I'm talking about here goes way beyond the physical sphere.

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

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

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

The word for *ground is hedraioma (hed-rah'-yo-mah); which means: a support. Unfortunately, 1Tim 3:15 is the only place in the entire New Testament where hedraioma is used so it's difficult to really know precisely what Paul was trying to convey. One of Webster's definitions of *support is: to provide a foundation for. That seems reasonable since colonnades don't usually rest upon soil, but upon some type of solid flooring; which in turn would rest, ideally, upon bedrock.

§. 1Tim 3:15 ...But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, who is the colonnade and the foundation of the truth.

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

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

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

Webster's defines generic as: 1) relating to, or characteristic of, a whole group or class; viz: general and/or nondescript, 2) being, or having, a nonproprietary name, 3) having no particularly distinctive quality or application, and 2) relating to, or having the rank of, a biological genus.

In the beginnings of Christianity, there were no denominational distinctions because Jesus didn't give his own church a name. All his New Testament followers were generic; viz: they were nondescript believers.

Webster's defines nondescript as: belonging, or appearing to belong to, no particular class or kind; viz: lacking in distinctive characteristics.

Jesus' original followers were simply labeled followers of "that way". (Acts 19:9, Acts 22:4, Acts 24:22,), and their movement was called the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). The label "Christians" was coined in the city of Antioch (Acts 11:26). There's no record in the entire New Testament of Christians being identified as Roman Catholics.

Webster's defines a sect as 1) a dissenting or schismatic religious body, 2) a religious denomination, and 2) a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader.

In Jesus' day, Judaism was divided in two major sects: Pharisee-ism and Sadducee-ism (Acts 5:17, Acts 15:5).

In our own day, Christianity is fragmented into far more sects than Judaism ever dreamed; so that it's difficult anymore to stand apart as one of Jesus' nondescript, generic believers without being labeled an apostate; and it's just as difficult to be known as a follower of that way.

A major drawback with sectarianism is that the moment you identify yourself with a denomination you become vulnerable to religious pride: a sort of master-race mentality. I've dialogued with Church Of Christ people who are just as convinced that theirs is the one true church as Roman Catholics are of theirs. And you open your beliefs to discredit because there probably isn't even one Christian denomination in existence anymore that doesn't have some scandal in its past; especially the Roman Catholic sect. It's past is horribly bloody, violent, abusive, oppressive, and immoral; so that to identify yourself with Catholicism now is to take upon yourself its reputation for money, power, splendor, un-Biblical dogmas and traditions, idolatry, paganism, myths, hypocrisy, imprisonment, oppression, murder, conquest, and shameful sexual sins.

An expert witness can be defined as: A witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of their expertise.

According to Christ's testimony as an expert witness; nobody, no exceptions, not one single person— not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham —will be permitted to either see or enter the kingdom of God without first undergoing a second birth via water and the Spirit (John 3:3-7).

FAQ : Since none of the people in the Old Testament— e.g. Abel, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ruth, David; et al —are on record as being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, then what is the water of John 3:3-7 if not the water of ritual water baptism?

The answer to that question is so simple that it's just amazing how many Bible students cannot answer it correctly when Jesus himself, in the very next chapter of John, told a promiscuous, non Christian woman, precisely what the water is.

The water isn't for bathing, nor is it for washing, nor is it for baptizing, nor is it for irrigation; no, rather, it's specifically for drinking.

§. John 4:10-14 . .Jesus replied; If you only knew the gift God has for you and who I am, you would ask me, and I would give you living water.

. . But sir, you don't have a rope or a bucket; she said; and this is a very deep well. Where would you get this living water? And besides, are you greater than our ancestor Jacob who gave us this well? How can you offer better water than he and his sons and his cattle enjoyed?

. . Jesus replied; People soon become thirsty again after drinking this water. But the water I give them takes away thirst altogether. It becomes a perpetual spring within them, giving them eternal life.

§. Rev 21:6 . .And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

§. Rev 22:17 . .And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The conclusion to draw from the above quotes is that the drinking water offered by Christ is actually eternal life rather than natural H2O (John 4:14). So then; people professing themselves to be Christians. while not having eternal life, have yet to undergo a second birth as per John 3:3-8.

A second conclusion to draw from John 3:3-7 is that second births weren't new in Jesus' day; no, they were already old hat. In fact, Jesus upbraided Nicodemus for failing to teach second births via water and the Spirit to his fellow Jews in his capacity as one of their rabbis. So then, second births have always been a Jewish concept, rather than a proprietary Christian dogma.

Second births are acts of God rather than acts of men, which means they're supernatural; ergo: they're genuine miracles; and cannot be willfully obtained through rites, rituals, or carnal love.

§. John 1:11-13 . .To all who accepted him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

Second births are easy to fake because they can be neither detected nor examined by any of the five senses. They can't be seen, heard, tasted or felt; nor do they give off an odor. So then, there's really no empirical evidence available that can prove either a second birth's presence or its absence. Since they're supernatural, they won't show up on oscilloscope, an X-ray, or a CatScan. Even people who are truly born again often don't know it because what's happened to them is totally beyond detection by either science or industry.

§. John 3:8 . .The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but cannot tell where it comes from nor where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

Second births are a whole other animal than religion because they're not the product of a ritual; but rather of a supernatural act of God.

§. John 3:6-7 . .Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit reproduces spirit.

Bats give birth to creatures with the nature of a bat. Coyotes give birth to creatures with the nature of coyote. Skunks give birth to creatures with the nature of a skunk. And God's Spirit gives birth to creatures with the nature of God.

§. 1John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

§. John 3:3 . .Truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The questioner didn't listen to Jesus' message. The water requirement is universal (John 3:5). It's required of Old Testament era personages as well as New Testament era personages, of both Jew and Gentile, of both Judaism and Christianity. It's always fun to ask water-baptism zealots where, when, and how Old Testament personages met the water requirement of their own second births.

The traditional formula for Christian baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Would you care to speculate as to how Abel, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and David, complied with that formula before Jesus was even born, before he was even crucified, before he even rose from the dead, and before he even issued the mandate of Matt 28:19? And if they did comply, who, in their day, was qualified to perform the service for them?

No; second births are from above. If natural water were an essential component in second births, along with God's spirit, then a second birth would be a combination of from above, and from below. But according to Jesus, second births are totally from above. The actual Greek word for "again" in the born-again phrases of John 3:3, John 3:5, and John 3:7 is anothen (an'-o-then) which means: from above, from a higher place . So neither component— neither the water nor The Spirit —are elements of this current earth or of this current creation; no, the water and The Spirit are both of Divine origin.

FAQ : Why do people continue to sin if their second birth, as per the power of Jer 31:31-34, Ezk 36:24-28, and 1John 3:9 is supposed to make them sinless?

It is indeed tragic that so many recipients of a second birth don't know what happened to them the moment they underwent it as per John 3: 3-8.

One's second existence is not a make-over of the original, but rather, an entirely new creation (2Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15)

One's second existence is 100% sinless because it has the nature of its Divine parent (1John 3:8-9)

Difficulty arises in understanding one's second existence because their first existence didn't go away when they underwent a second birth; nor does a second birth improve their first existence. No, their first existence not only stays with them, but it also stays sinful: co-existing with one's second existence, sharing the same body (at least for now); so that true born-again Xians are literally two people. One of them is in Adam, and the other is in Christ. The one in Adam is hopelessly sinful, but the one in Christ is just the opposite; it is hopelessly sinless.

One's second existence is impossible to detect with the five natural senses of touch, taste, hearing, sight, or smell, nor can one's second existence be detected with scientific instruments like X-rays and CatScans. I know I have a second existence present with me only because the Bible is telling me so; otherwise I'd never guess it. Though I'm somewhat aware that something is different about me now, I can't really put my finger on it and tell you what it is.

And I also know my second existence is sinless; but again, only because the Bible is telling me so because via my five natural senses, I can easily observe the daily sins of my first existence; but since my second existence is supernatural rather than physical, I am unable to observe its totally sinless conduct.

§. John 17:2-3 . .For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

The Lord's statement doesn't define eternal life as some have supposed: no, the real meaning of John 17:3 is that Christ gives his own eternal life in order to make it possible for them to relate to God and/or His son on their own level. In other words: it's difficult for God and/or His son to relate to human life because human life's intuition is simply too limited. Without both parties having eternal life, both parties would be frustrated trying to communicate with each on a meaningful level even though they may be the best of friends.

For example: my Guinea pig and I were really good buddies before she died; but Fuzzy had a pig's mind and I have a man's mind. So we couldn't relate all that well. We related as pets and their owners relate; but never as humans relate to humans because our minds were neither on the same level nor on the same wave length: she being animal life and me being human life. Well; God and His son are eternal life; which relates to human life even less than a man and an animal. So in my natural state; they can relate to me only on the level by which pets and their owners relate; which is pretty limited.

Since God is eternal, then it only stands to reason that His life would be eternal too. But I have not been talking so much about the longevity of eternal life as I have about the nature of eternal life; viz: its properties.

§. 2Pet 1:4 . . He has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature.

Eternal life is truly the Achilles heel of Roman Catholicism because without eternal life, it is impossible to have Christ.

§. Rom 8:9 . .You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

§. Rom 8:10-11 . .But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

§. John 10:26-28 . .My sheep heed my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish

Without eternal life, one abides in a state of Death and in grave danger of the wrath of God.

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

Without eternal life, the epistle of 1John is none of your business because the epistle's recipients were already in possession of eternal life even before John's letter arrived.

§. 1John 5:13 . .These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life

One's lack of eternal life is the evidence that they have yet to correctly consume Jesus' flesh and blood.

Eternal Life is not to be confused with Immortality. Life and Immortality are juxtaposed in 2Tim 1:10; where the two terms are connected with a conjunction. They aren't connected with a verb, so that you can't say Life is Immortality; no, Life and Immortality are two distinctly different states of being. Immortality refers to the nature of one's physical body; while Life refers to the nature of one's existence; e.g. animal life, plant life, human life, angel life, and God life.

All forms of life in the cosmos are dead in that none of it is self-sustaining. The human race today, therefore, consists of two major divisions: the Living and the Dead; the "dead" being those who do not have eternal life. If that were not so, then Jesus would not have bothered to come.

Immortality is a physical kind of life and refers to a superhuman body that can never die (1Cor 15:53-57) whereas, Eternal Life is a supernatural kind of life that not only can't die, but it never even really began. A Spirit birth produces a supernatural kind of life; whereas a human birth produces only a natural kind of life.

§. John 3:6 . .Humans can reproduce only human life, but life that is born of The Spirit is supernatural.

That supernatural characteristics of eternal life are precisely how it's possible to possess it right now rather than cross your fingers and hope to obtain it later.

§. John 3:8 . .The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of The Spirit.

The recipients of the apostle John's first epistle were already in possession of eternal life even before his letter arrived.

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

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

The possession of eternal life is an essential prerequisite to associating with the Bible's God.

§. John 17:1-3 . . you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all You gave him. Now this is eternal life, that they might know You, the only true God, and the one whom You sent, Jesus Christ.

Some scholars are of the opinion that John 17:3 is a later editorial insertion. But if it is truly suspicious, then why didn't Catholic scholars remove it from their own versions? The fact of the matter is, they dare not remove it because there is really no way to ascertain whether or not it was in John's original document since it no longer exists; nor is it possible to ascertain whether or not even the oldest existing manuscripts are verbatim copies of his original.

According to Jesus' own testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to eternal life, people who don't have it, don't because they have yet to correctly consume his flesh and imbibe his blood.

Another reason people don't have eternal life is because they've never taken a swig of living water.

§. John 4:10-14 . .If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water. . Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him an artesian source of water gushing up to eternal life. (cf. Rev 21:6, Rev 22:17)

As a Catholic, I wasn't taught to believe that it's possible to obtain Eternal Life today, right now, before passing on. But yes, it is possible; and it is not only possible; but it is essential to obtain it prior to passing on or otherwise you'll leave this life as one of the Dead, rather than one of the Living; and if you'd like to know what's in store for the Dead, just feast your glims on Rev 20:10-15.

Note that the grammatical tense of the verb "have" in these next excerpts communicates a grammatical present tense rather than future.

§. John 5:24 . . Truly, truly, 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.

In spite of his "truly, truly" insistence upon the honesty of his testimony, Jesus might as well have spoken those words into a pillow for all it benefits modern Catholics. Far too many adamantly refuse to accept the grammatical present tense of Jesus' verb "have" in spite of the impeccable integrity of God's son; and in spite of the fact that he spoke for God.

§. John 3:31-36 . .he has come from heaven. He tells what he has seen and heard, but how few believe what he tells them! Those who believe him discover that God is real. For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words

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

Therefore, when Jesus spoke for God in the present tense, he meant what God said right then and there; not some time later. Jesus' credibility as a prophet (not to mention his own personal integrity) is at stake here, and to believe otherwise is to insinuate that the lord and master of New Testament Christianity lied for God when he used the grammatical present tense in John 3:36, 5:24, 6:47, 6:53, 6:54, and 6:56.

John the Baptist was sent by God as a witness for His son; therefore I regard John as an expert witness. According to his testimony as an expert witness, genuine believers have eternal life: those who don't have eternal life are unbelievers, and in grave danger of the wrath of God.

§. John 3:36 . .Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disbelieves the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

OBJECTION : Eternal life is a given. Everybody already has eternal life because people are going to exist in eternal suffering for the same length of time as others who will exist in eternal bliss.

To say eternal life is a given is like saying cougar life is a given. It might be a given for cougars, but certainly not for human beings. Human life is the given for human beings.

Eternal Life is a supernatural, non-human kind of life. It's custodian is the New Testament's Jesus and nobody has it until they get it directly from him.

§. John 17:1-3 . .For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

In order to obtain Eternal Life, one must correctly consume Jesus' flesh and blood.

§. John 4:10-14 . .Jesus answered her; If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water. . . Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him an artesian spring gushing up into eternal life.

§. Rev 21:6 . .And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

§. Rev 22:17 . .And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

John the Baptist was sent by God as a witness for His son; therefore I regard John as an expert witness. According to his testimony as an expert witness, it's believers who have the eternal life: those who don't have eternal life are unbelievers, and in grave danger of the wrath of God.

§. John 3:36 . .Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disbelieves the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

People in Hell don't have eternal life; no, they have human life, which is a created kind of life that began in the book of Genesis. Yes, after human beings come into existence, they stay in existence. But that's not eternal life; that's no different than keeping a watch running after it leaves the factory. Real eternal life comes from no factory: it has no beginning, because it's not a created kind of life, no; it's God's life. From the vanishing point in the past to the vanishing point in the future; God always was and He always shall be.

According to Jesus' testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to eternal life, people with eternal life are not going to live it in Hell.

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

According to Paul's testimony, the mind of every Christian not in current possession of eternal life; is currently a dead mind, and currently manipulated by a destructive spirit being.

§. Eph 2:1-3 . .And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience.

The only kind of life that Jesus uses to make people alive who're dead in trespasses and sins is eternal life.

§. John 5:24 . .Truly, Truly, I say unto 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.

So then, what does Jesus' testimony as an expert witness say about Catholics who don't have eternal life? It says: 1) they are not listening to Jesus' message, 2) they don't trust God, 3) they are in grave danger of being condemned for their sins, 4) they exist in death, 5) they do not hear Jesus' voice, 6) they are not Jesus' sheep, 7) they are not Jesus' followers, 8) they do not know God, 9) they do not know Jesus.

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

§. 1John 5:11-12 . .And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has this life; whoever does not have this life, does not have God's son.

§. Rom 8:9-10 . .And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

OBJECTION : According to 2Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, Eph 2:10, Eph 4:24, and Col 3:10, born-again Christians are creations. Since that's the case, then wouldn't the kind of eternal life they get at the moment of their second birth be a created kind of life?

According to 1John 5:11-12, the kind of eternal life that God gives to Jesus' sheep is the very same kind of eternal life that's in His son. And according to Jesus' testimony as an expert witness, the kind of life he has within himself is the very same kind of life that is within God.

§. John 5:26 . .For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in himself

When I was born again, I underwent a re-Genesis— I became a new creature; viz: a new creation. However, I was not re-created the second time around with a new kind of human life; no, I was re-created the second time around with eternal life; which is not a created kind of life at all; but rather, the life of God, who never had a beginning nor will ever have an ending.

The New Testament Greek word for "eternal" is aionios (ahee-o'-nee-os); which means: perpetual. Aionios corresponds to the Old Testament Hebrew word `owlam (o-lawm') which means from the vanishing point in the past, to the vanishing point in the future.

The advantage of eternal life is not so much its longevity; which is really only an incidental benefit: no, the real advantage is that eternal life is the nature of God; viz: the nature of a sinless being.

Bat life gives baby bats the nature of a bat, starfish life gives baby starfish the nature of a starfish, mole life gives baby moles the nature of a mole, and eternal life gives God's kin the nature of God.

§. 2Pet 1:3-4 . .His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in The Divine Nature

§. 1John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

I am sometimes accused of polytheism for my belief in the possibility of a human being's possession of the nature of God; but my second birth did not make me a god, nor did it even make me divine; no, it only makes me take after God like a chip off the old block in that the kind of life I received when I underwent a re-Genesis made the born-again part of me sinless.

Somebody always points to 1John 1:8 to prove it is impossible for born-again Christians to be sinless. But those people are typically always unaware of the fact that genuine born again Christians are temporarily two selves in one body. They are a self in Adam, and they are a self in Christ; and they will remain bi-selfed till the day they die.

My Adam-self falls under 1John 1:8. My Christ-self falls under 1John 3:9. The one self sins, the other self does not sin; in point of fact, it is impossible for my Christ-self to commit any sins of any kind simply because it has the nature of God; who cannot be tempted to sin because it is not in God's nature to contemplate sin (1John 1:5, Jas 1:13).

I can easily guarantee everybody who is reading this, that unless they undergo the kind of re-Genesis that I'm talking about here, they will absolutely not be permitted to enter God's world even if they are 1,000 times the saint that Mother Teresa was. Why? Because second births are not an option; no, they are a must.

§. John 3:3 . .Jesus replied; I assure you, unless you are born from above, you can never see the Kingdom of God.

Everybody starts out born from below; viz: born of Adam. But only those who have undergone the miracle of a second birth can honestly say they are born of God.

§. 2Pet 1:2-4 . .Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the Divine Nature.

Human nature is Man's greatest moral weakness. He will never be spiritual enough to live in close proximity with a holy God while he has it. Below, in two separate passages of New Testament scripture, is the testimony of the greatest Christian missionary for Christ who ever lived.

§. 1Tim 1:15-17 . .Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners— of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy; so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would trust him and receive eternal life.

§. Rom 7:14-25 . .The trouble is not with The Teachings but with me, because I am sold into slavery, with sin as my master. I don't understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I don't do it. Instead, I do the very thing I hate. I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience shows that I agree that The Teachings are good. But I can't help myself, because it is sin inside me that makes me do these evil things.

. . I know I am rotten through and through so far as my old sinful nature is concerned. No matter which way I turn, I can't make myself do right. I want to, but I can't. When I want to do good, I don't. And when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway. But if I am doing what I don't want to do, I am not really the one doing it; the sin within me is doing it.

. . It seems to be a fact of life that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. I love God's teachings with all my heart. But there is another power at work within me that is at war with my mind. This power wins the fight and makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin? Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God's teachings, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.

OBJECTION : If Jesus was a full human being, then why wasn't he a slave to human nature just like everybody else?

God empowered Jesus with eternal life. Precisely when, I don't really know; but my guess it was at birth since he came into the world as God's Word, rather than just Mary's baby boy.

§. John 1:1-5 . .In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

§. John 5:26-27 . .For as the Father has Life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have Life in himself

Jesus very definitely would have been a slave to human nature had not God filled him to the max with His spirit.

But even though Jesus had eternal life, and was maxed out with God's spirit, he still had to battle human nature just like everybody else— but he became a better man for it.

§. Heb 5:6-8 . .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

Believers themselves are urged to be filled with The Spirit in order to win their battles with human nature.

§. Eph 5:18 . .And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit

§. Gal 5:16-18 . .I say then: walk in The Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against The Spirit, and The Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

According to Peter, possession of the Divine Nature is a blessing obtained by faith in specific promises (2Pet 1:2-5) to which should later be added some other stuff he listed; e.g. goodness, knowledge, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love.

So then, before a believer can begin adding that other stuff to their faith, they must first have the Divine Nature already installed and in possession so they can begin developing it to it's greatest potential (cf: Rom 6:1-2, Col 3:1-10, Php 2:12-13).

Peter also said that a believer who lacks goodness, knowledge, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love; is blind and near sighted and has forgotten that they were purified of their old life of sin. But what interests me the most though, is that believers who lack those things are still in possession of the Divine Nature regardless; even when they aren't showing any evidence of it's power in their life.

So then, Peter's admonition was not to make an effort to obtain the Divine Nature, but rather, he assumed the recipients of his letter were already in possession of it via the promises he mentioned in 2Pet 1:4 and they just needed to knuckle down and build it up to full strength. Failure to do as he says results in a lack of assurance of one's salvation (2Pet 1:10) ergo: since no Catholic is ever certain of their eternal destiny— not even the super pious ones likes Popes and above-average nuns like Mother Teresa —then it's obvious that no Catholic is truly following Peter's instructions.

Presumption can be defined as overconfidence; which Rome has decreed to be curse-worthy.

Faith is oftentimes mistaken for presumption, and the fear of appearing presumptuous actually prevents a good number of people professing themselves to be believers from fully relying upon the truthfulness of Jesus' and his Father's statements.

§. Heb 11:1 . .What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we anticipate is going to happen.

Consent to the truthfulness of facts and/or statements does not qualify as faith in those facts and statements when the elements of confidence and assurance are absent from one's consent. Here's a simple self exam to determine whether your degree of belief qualifies as faith, or just consent.

1) Have you correctly partaken of the Holy Communion elements of bread and wine?

According to Jesus' testimony as an expert witness in matters related to the Eucharist, anyone who has correctly dined upon his flesh, and correctly imbibed his blood, is now in possession of eternal life.

Note the grammatical tense of Jesus' "have" verb; it's present tense rather than future. So then, if you have correctly dined upon his flesh, and correctly imbibed his blood, you should be able to confidently attest that you are in the right-now possession of eternal life. If you cannot do that, then though you may be consenting to the truthfulness of Jesus' statement at John 6:54; you do not have faith in it.

Manna that the Jews ate with Moses, provided them with sustenance; but it was only daily sustenance. They couldn't survive on just one dose of manna; no, they had to eat it every day; and even then; all eventually died.

But according to Christ's testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to Holy Communion, whoever ever eats his flesh will live forever; rather than just day to day.

§. John 6:48-51 . .I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

Note the grammatical tense of Jesus' "will" verb; this time it's future rather than present because immortality relates to the nature of one's body rather than the nature of their existence. Although its possible to exist with human life and eternal life both at the same time (John 3:8) it is impossible to occupy two bodies at the same time (1Cor 15:49-54).

So then, the promise of immortality— though its occupation is reserved for the future —is as good as a current possession since the gifts of God are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). So then, if you have correctly dined upon Jesus' flesh, you should be able to confidently attest that you have immortality in the bag. If you cannot do that, then though you may be consenting to the truthfulness of Jesus' statements at John 6:48-51; you do not have faith in them.

Below are some Bible passages that relate belief to eternal life. Be sure to note the grammatical tense of the verb "have" because it will be in the present tense rather than future.

§. John 5:24 . .I assure you, those who heed my message, and believe in God who sent me, have eternal life.

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

According to John the Baptist (John 3:36) according to God's son (John 5:24 and 6:47) and according to John the apostle (1John 5:13) if you confidently consider yourself to be a believer; then you should also confidently consider yourself to be in the right-now possession of eternal life, no waiting period; because their statements are in the present tense rather than the future.

If you cannot confidently attest that you are in the right-now possession of eternal life, then although you may be consenting to the truthfulness of the statements made at John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, and 1John 5:13; you do not have faith in them.

According to Jesus' testimony as an expert witness in matters related to perdition, anyone who truly heeds his message, and relies upon his God, is no longer in any danger of eternal suffering.

If you cannot confidently attest that it is now absolutely impossible for you to ever be condemned for your sins; then you may be consenting to the truthfulness of Jesus' statement at John 5:24; but in reality, you are neither heeding his message nor relying upon his God. The truth is; you are a blow-hard who's not yet convinced that the New testament's Jesus knows what the hell he's talking about.

§. John 3:31. .He has come from heaven. He tells what he has seen and heard, but how few believe what he tells them!

The two verses below are from the gospel and epistle that bear the apostle John's name: same man. This is sure to knock your socks off.

§. John 20:30-31 . .Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name.

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

According to the apostle John, belief in Jesus' miracles is synonymous with believing in his name; and results in the right-now possession of eternal life. So then, people who consent to the validity of Jesus' miracles, while not believing themselves to be in the right-now possession eternal life; not only don't believe in the name of the son of God, but they haven't even so much as believed in his miracles yet either. How is that possible? Because the Bible God's criteria for assessing faith is different than a religious man's criteria.

6) Do you believe the Bible's God is an honest person who can be trusted to tell the truth?

Following is the Bible God's testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to the possession of eternal life.

§. 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. . . 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.

According to the Bible's God, people believing themselves to be Christians, while not possessing eternal life; are quite without His son; viz: in reality they are Christless Christians— in other words, if you profess to be a believer, while not possessing eternal life; then you may be consenting to the truthfulness of God's testimony at 1John 5:8-12, but you do not have faith in it.

Christians of consent, rather than faith, give the Bible's God and His son lots of lip service, while in reality, they are on a sure-fire path to criminal justice and eternal suffering; plus, they are openly insinuating that the Bible's God is a dishonest person who cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

§. 1John 5:10 . .Everyone who does not believe God makes Him a liar, because he hasn't believed the testimony God has given about His son.

It's ironic that some of Jesus' statements are so unbelievable that even people professing themselves to be believers can't help but regard them as false; and by doing so, are already cursed; no waiting period.

§. John 3:18 . .There is no judgment awaiting those who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already been condemned

§. John 3:36 . . He that disbelieves the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.

§. Rev 21:8 . .The unbelieving . . their place will be in the fiery lake of molten sulfur.

OBJECTION : You say; "John 3:36 . .Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disbelieves the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." What about people who are uncertain about the Son?

Uncertainty is all the same as disbelief since Bible belief contains the elements of confidence and trust.

§. Heb 11:1 . .What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we anticipate is going to happen.

§. 1Pet 3:15 . .Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

The New Testament Greek word for *hope in Peter's mandate is elpis (el-pece') which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure); and to expect with confidence. Note the elements of anticipation, and expectation, and confidence.

Webster's definition of hope as a verb is very similar: 1) to desire with expectation of obtainment, and 2) to expect with confidence and trust. Note the elements of expectation, and confidence, and trust.

Webster's definition of hope as a noun is: 1) a desire accompanied by expectation of, or belief in, fulfillment, and 2) expectation of fulfillment or success. Note the elements of expectation, and belief.

Synonyms for uncertainty are: doubt, dubiety, skepticism, suspicion, and mistrust

So then, uncertain people are disbelievers, since there is no middle ground between belief and disbelief any more than there is a middle ground between foolish and wise, or wicked and righteous.

OBJECTION : You say "Faith is the unwavering confidence that what you believe to be true, really is." One saying one has faith today does not mean one will have it tomorrow; nor does it mean they won't.

Human faith is easily disillusioned. However, faith that never wavers is inhuman; viz: it is not only supernatural, but it is also a gratuity from God.

§. Rom 12:3 . .Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.

§. 1Cor 12:4-10 . .There is a variety of gifts, but the same Spirit . . To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit

§. 2Pet 1:1 . .Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ: to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ

Rome condemns Catholics who believe themselves in possession of waver-proof faith.

Council of Trent, Canon 16 . .If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

OBJECTION : Though there is no middle ground between things like pregnant and not pregnant; that cannot be said for middle ground between fool and wise, disbelief and belief.

That objector was probably thinking along the lines of a grade point average; but the Bible's God doesn't evaluate people on the basis of an average. Each individual thought, word, and deed is evaluated on the basis of its own merits. So that each individual thought, word, and deed is either righteous or unrighteous, and/or it is either foolish or wise.

Say you speak three unrighteous words and seven unrighteous words. In accordance with grade point averages, your score would be 70% which corresponds to a C if that's the way the Bible's God graded; but He doesn't.

I think most Catholics are hoping that their righteous thoughts, words, and deeds will outweigh their unrighteous thoughts, words, and deeds so they get a passing score. But it doesn't work that way. Each unrighteous thought, word, and deed will receive its own fair amount of punishment just as each righteous thought, word, and deed will receive its own fair amount of reward.

Unfortunately, there's the element of consistence to take into consideration. In order to escape eternal punishment, one must be righteous all the time, rather than just righteous most of the time.

§. Rom 2:6-11 . .God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.

So then, a lifetime Catholic who has done their conscientious best to comply with Rome, with the Traditions, and with the Catechism is in just as much danger of eternal suffering as a lifetime Atheist if their performance hasn't been consistently wise and righteous; in other words, they can't be wise and righteous some of the time, nor even wise and righteous most of the time; no, they have to be wise and righteous all of the time; viz: 100%. And why is that? Because the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) so that for each count of unrighteous thoughts, words, and deeds, the sinner must die. Since a sinner has only one life to give for its sins, then they must endure a perpetual death in order to make up the deficit.

On numerous occasions, Jesus identified himself as "son of man" which technically means "son of Adam". That title was neither new nor unique in Jesus' 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 created in the beginning (Gen 1:26-27, Gen 3:9, Gen 5:2).

Refusal to accept Jesus' biological connection to Adam is an evidence of Satanic deception.

§. 1John 4:2-3 . .Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

FAQ : Trinitarian theology (which I believe is biblical) states that The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. All are eternally distinct personages of the Godhead but one in essence and very being?

That's a good description of Trinitarian theology. However, I must point out that it's much too simplified because that description doesn't factor in a place for Jesus Christ to be a son of Adam, and it fails to distinguish between his pre-historic existence as a spirit being as opposed to his historical existence as a human being.

While the Trinity is three persons in one; Jesus Christ complicates matters because he himself is two persons in one; viz: he's a being of spirit, and he's a being of flesh: he's a son of God and he's a son of Adam; and he exists as both of those two kinds of beings all at the same time. Those two alter egos lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion in people's minds as to Jesus Christ's status in regards to his divinity because a son of Adam cannot be God. They can only be human. Therefore, in order for Christ, as a son of Adam, to be legally worshipped and respected as God, a son of Adam has to be promoted to the rank of God.

§. Php 2:7-11 . . And in human form, he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal's death on a cross. Because of this, God lifted him up to the heights of heaven, and gave him The Name that is above every other name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Supreme, to the glory of God the Father.

The Name that is above every name that can be named is not Jesus. I mean, hundreds of Latin men are named Jesús. No, "the" name that is above any name that can be named is Yhvh.

There's a parallel to this in Genesis where Joseph was given Pharaoh's signet ring, and with it all the power to transact State business in Pharaoh's name just as if it were Pharaoh himself conducting State business; plus the Egyptians had to kneel before Joseph just like they would to Pharaoh.

§. Gen 41:40-44 . . You shall be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; and he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.

So then, God is kicking back, almost in retirement, as He has delegated the operation of the universe to His son; whom all men must now revere as Yhvh.

§. Dan 7:13-14 . . I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like a son of Adam came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom the one that which shall not be destroyed.

I don't believe the Bible teaches Rome's version of the Trinity nor does the Bible teach Rome's so-called Hypostatic Union. I believe the Bible reveals something that its own self calls a Godhead (Acts 17:29, Rom 1:20, Col 2:9).

The Godhead appears to consist of four very unique individuals: 1) God as Himself, 2) God as his Word, 3) God as his Spirit, and 4) God as a son of Adam. The concept of a four-fold, composite God, isn't a new concept; but was already known among Old Testament prophets prior to the New Testament's introduction (e.g. Ezk 1:1-28).

Those four individuals define a composite unity (Deut 6:4, 1Cor 8:6). Please don't ask me to explain that in a way that makes perfect sense because I really don't think it can be done. Not that it's impossible. What I mean is; I don't think it can be explained in a way that a mortal human mind can fully comprehend without making it sound like there are four Gods out there. And besides, this isn't something that can be reasoned; no, this is something that has to be revealed.

§. 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.

FAQ : If the Godhead consists of four persons, then why doesn't the formula for water baptism include all four?

That would be redundant because The Son is two persons in one: he's the son of God, and he's a son of Adam— he's the Word, and he's the flesh. The formula would be confusing if it read like this: "in the name of the Father, the Word, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" because the Word and the Son are a two-fold composite being.

Failure to parse those four divine persons has led Rome down the road to what I believe is a very non Biblical theory of the Godhead: as a result, Catholicism has just about totally lost sight of the Jewish humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. Rome just can't bring itself to accept the New Testament's Jesus as an honest to gosh, red blooded son of Adam in his own right who was subject to all the obligations and limitations imposed upon every other son of Adam.

I have yet to meet a Catholic in my lifetime who truly believes that the New Testament's Jesus was fully God and fully Man. I see Catholics mouth that all the time, like some sort of knee-jerk reflex; when in reality, they only believe Jesus was a divine human, not a full human. You see; a full human is under God and subject to all the obligations, temptations, and limitations imposed upon all other humans, including a ranking that's actually inferior not only to God; but to the angels too just like everybody else descending from Adam.

§. Ps 8:3-5 . .When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is Man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels

What many Catholics routinely fail to realize is that when God as his Word became a human being, The Word deposed itself and became as other men.

§. John 1:1-4 . .In the beginning the Word already existed. It was with God, and was God. It was in the beginning with God. It created everything there is. Nothing exists that it didn't make.

§. Php 2:6-7 . .Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form.

And then, towards the end of his stay; prayed that upon his return, he be reinstated.

§. John 17:4-5 . .I have glorified you on the earth. I have finished the work which you have given me to do. And now, O Father, glorify me together with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.

I think the problem is that Rome's clergy has failed to make it clear to the rank and file exactly what it is to be, not only a human being, but also what it is to be a "fellow" human being. Until people are able to discern Jesus as not only a real human being, but also as a fellow human being— a fellow Adam —they will never truly appreciate the complexities of the Godhead.

FAQ : Did God's Word as a "fellow Adam" have a sin nature as did his progenitor?

Webster's defines propensity as: an often intense natural inclination or preference; viz: an intrinsic inclination and/or disposition towards.

Webster's defines intrinsic as: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing.

Based upon Webster's definitions, my straightforward answer to the question is YES, however, I hope to be indulged to elaborate.

Jesus was not only "son of Adam" but also "son of God". That situation gave him an advantage because although that which is born of Adam can sin, that which is born of God cannot sin.

§. 1John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

The "seed" to which John refers is of course unrelated to human sperm cells. What he's talking about are the inherited characteristics of a species; e.g. bat babies are born with a bat's nature just as Meerkat babies are born with a Meerkat's nature; ergo: bat youngsters behave like bats, and Meerkat youngsters behave like Meerkats. So then, whoever is born of God behaves like God.

When Adam was created, he came into being in the image and likeness of God, but he was not given the nature of God; no, he was given human nature. Whoever is born of God comes into being with the nature of God; which is easily powerful enough to suppress human nature's sinful impulses.

§. Gal 5:16-17 . .I say then: walk in The Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

I have yet to know of a professing Christian who believed themselves to be filled with The Spirit, not even Mother Teresa. In a private letter, penned to a Father Joseph Neuner S.J., Teresa complained: "the place of God in my soul is blank— there is no God in me"

Teresa's complaint is a depressing commentary on her utter failure to comply with Paul's spiritual guidance.

Jesus had the advantage of being filled with The Spirit at all times rather than just some of the time, so there was no way that the flesh could get the better of him like it did Teresa.

Had the Devil fully understood this, he wouldn't have been foolish enough to tempt Jesus. No doubt the adversary was confident Jesus was just another carnal weakling like his great grandfather; but to the Devil's chagrin, Jesus was more like God than like Adam.

OBJECTION : Jesus didn't have God's spirit all his life. He got The Spirit at the age of 30 (Matt 3:16-17).

That event was for John's sake, not Jesus'. John had been predicting Messiah's arrival but had no clue who it was.

§. John 1:32-34 . .And John testified saying; I beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him. And I did not recognize him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me; He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.

That's really amazing considering Jesus and John were only six months apart in age and their moms were good friends. That tells me that there was nothing unusual about the young Jesus. You could not tell either by looking at him, nor associating with him, that Jesus was somebody special.

John the Baptist was filled with God's spirit before he was even born (Luke 1:16). But of no one but Jesus do the Gospel narratives state that "God's spirit is upon him without measure or limit." I truly believe that was the secret to Jesus' sinless success. He wasn't given God's spirit just on special occasions, nor here a little and there a little. No, Jesus was given God's spirit to the max.

§. Isa 11:1-5 . .A shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. And the Spirit of Yhvh will rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of Yhvh.

. . And He will delight in the fear of Yhvh, and He will not judge by what his eyes see, nor make a decision by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. Also righteousness will be the girdle about His loins, and faithfulness the belt about His waist.

God's spirit could not risk leaving Jesus to himself. Along with the propensity to sin, is human nature's tendency to develop sinful habits. Left to himself, by the time Jesus was 30 he would have been utterly useless for atonement purposes, and in a very dire predicament. Who would die for HIS sins?

OBJECTION : If Jesus inherited grandpa Adam's propensity to sin, then he couldn't possibly qualify as a lamb without blemish or spot.

Jesus only had to be 100% innocent of any wrong doing to qualify as a lamb; which is really amazing when you think about it. He wasn't guilty of even one single evil thought, word, or deed! (cf. Isa 53:9, 2Cor 5:21, 1Pet 2:22, Heb 4:15, Heb 7:26, 1John 3:10). That just goes to show how powerful God's spirit is when It really makes an effort to suppress human nature. Walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, curing blindness, healing leprosy, restoring withered limbs, raising the dead, and calming storms pales in significance to the power that God exerts in suppressing Adam's propensity to sin.

§. Ezk 36:26-27 . .And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a tender heart; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules.

FAQ : Could Jesus have sinned, as we have and do, and still be called the Son of God?

Yes, of course. You know, getting drunk and barking at the moon isn't sufficiently powerful enough to change one's species. Barking doesn't make one a dog. You have to be born a dog to be a dog. So then, when Jesus was born the son of God, nothing could change that. Just as born-again Christians cannot lose their kinship to God by sin, so Jesus could not have lost his kinship to God by sin either. A naughty child is still your child regardless of its conduct.

What if God were to promote a human being to the rank of God? He wouldn't be God intrinsically, no; but still, a man who holds the rank of God would merit all the worship, service, and reverence that the name of God deserves; plus, he would also have the promoted right to be addressed as God; if God, at the time of the man's promotion, granted the man the privilege of using God's name for himself.

That's an angle that very few Jews ever think to consider unless somebody forces the issue.

§. Dan 7:13-14 . .As I looked on, in the night vision, one like a human being came with the clouds of heaven; he reached the Ancient of Days and was presented to Him. Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; all peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship, the one that shall not be destroyed.

§. Php 2:9-11 . .God exalted him to the highest place and gave him The Name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Lots of men go by the name of Jesus; which is the English equivalent of the Greek equivalent of the Old Testament name Joshua. But those are not the names that are above every name; otherwise we would all have to bow to every man who's name is Jesus or Joshua.

No, the name that is higher than any name you could possibly imagine— the highest name that we know of —is neither Allah, nor Christ, nor Jesus, nor Vishna, nor Moses, nor the Virgin Mary, nor Buddha. It's Yhvh; a very important name of the True God.

§. Ex 20:2-3 . .I Yhvh am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods besides Me.

So then; refusal to bend the knee to the New Testament's Jesus as Yhvh insults the honor and dignity of God's name.

§. John 20:28-29 . .Thomas said to him; My Lord and my God! Then Jesus told him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

Thomas was no fool. All the apostles were fully instructed in the Old Testament; in stark contrast to the average pew warmer's shameful ignorance of Old Testament Messianic prophecies and predictions. He was well aware that there is but one true God; and Jesus himself believed the very same thing (John 17:3). So then, how was Thomas able to address a human being as God without going against the grain of everything he was taught; plus insulting Jesus' very own personal beliefs? Easy. David wrote that The True God addresses human kings of the Davidic dynasty as Himself.

§. Ps 45:6-7 . .Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your associates by anointing you with the oil of joy.

Rabbis and Jewish translators have tinkered with that passage in a futile attempt to avoid the obvious. God is either speaking to Himself, or He is speaking to a human king of Davidic royalty. Thomas no doubt believed the later and that's why he addressed Jesus as "my God".

OBJECTION : How can God bestow His name on someone with the purpose of making people bow down to the recipient?

Bowing down was not the singular purpose of promoting Jesus to the rank of God. No, it was to install him as a monarch of supreme authority so that people everywhere would serve and obey him just as if he were the Yhvh himself; and they are to serve and obey not out of respect for Jesus, but out of respect for God's name. It's not without precedent.

There are a fair number of angel-sightings recorded in the Old Testament. One angel in particular (called Metatron in sacred Jewish literature) appears to be so high ranking, and so holy, that it is authorized to go by God's name and to be treated, regarded, received, and worshipped, as Yhvh himself. Just exactly what the story is on that angel is hard to know for sure; but in the Scripture texts it's clear that the demarcation between God and the angel (whose name is his Master's) is so blurred that the two often appear to be one and the same person.

The most famous of the angel's appearances was at the burning bush with Moses. It also appeared to Hagar on the road to Shur, and was Israel's guide during their wanderings in the desert for forty years. It was involved in Abraham's offering of his son Isaac, Jacob wrestled with it, and that same angel called Moses up into the mountain and gave him The Law. Moses and his associates saw that angel and the Scripture says they saw God in those encounters (Ex 24:9-11). It was obviously not the actual Yhvh in person, but because it goes by God's name, it is proper to regard that particular angel as if it is.

Messiah's promotion to the grade of a divine being was predicted in the Old Testament.

§. Isa 53:13 . .Indeed, My servant shall prosper, be exalted and raised to great heights.

§. Isa 9:5 . .For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named; The Mighty God, The Eternal Father; the Prince of peace. (Incidentally, Melchizedek— Gen 14:18 — was a Prince of peace too.)

§. 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 one that will never be destroyed.

OBJECTION : Aren't you forgetting Isaiah 42:8? "I am Yhvh; that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another"

If one takes the time to read that whole section, they'll readily discover that Yhvh is not talking about someone like Jesus, but rather, He is invalidating the opinion of some that Yhvh is just another god among a pantheon of gods; sort of like the USA's governors. We don't have just one governor, currently we have 50; and they are all equal in rank. But the Yhvh is not like that. He is not one among fifty gods of equal rank.

Jacob's uncle Laban is a case in point. He recognized Yhvh as a legitimate god, but the meanwhile kept a supply of household gods with whom he practiced divination. As far as he was concerned; gods are gods, and one is just as good as another.

§. Gen 28:20-21 . .Then Jacob made this vow: If 'elohiym will be with me and protect me on this journey and give me food and clothing, and if He will bring me back safely to my father, then I will make Yhvh my god.

(Apparently, up to that point in his life, Jacob wasn't as yet fully convinced in his own mind that Yhvh's role was singular in the grand scheme of things.)

That's correct: God is not a human being; in point of fact Jesus said the Bible's God is a spirit being rather than a mortal being (John 3:6, John 4:24)

However, there are numerous incidents in the Old Testament of God associating with human beings in the form of a human being. That doesn't make God a human being any more than associating with people as fire, wind, Shekina, voice, earthquake or angel makes Him a fire, a wind, an earthquake, a Shekina, a voice, or an angel; no, it just makes the Bible's Yhvh versatile.

If you were a native of Mars when the latest Lander arrived; and knew nothing of Earth's flora, fauna, and/or its technology, I suspect you would conclude that the Lander was an Earthling. Well, think of Yhvh's appearances as fire, wind, earthquake, human beings, Shekina, and angels like the Lander. It's just His way of associating and communicating with human beings. The Yhvh in all of His full existence can't come to earth so He utilizes proxy forms.

Personally, I think that a Messiah with the rank of God makes perfect sense. And such a Messiah would not compete for the loyalty of Yhvh's people as per Isa 42:8. No, as an appointee, he would be obligated to worship and serve the true Yhvh just like everybody else or risk losing both his job and his rank; just as Joseph too would have lost both his job and his rank had he failed to serve Pharaoh faithfully. Though Joseph wielded Pharaoh's signet, and was, for all practical intents and purposes, Pharaoh to the people; yet Joseph was still accountable to the true Pharaoh.

§. Gen 41:41-45 . .And Pharaoh said to Joseph; See I have set you over all the land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand, and put it on Joseph's hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen, and put the gold necklace around his neck. And he had him ride in his second chariot; and they proclaimed before him; Bend the knee! And Pharaoh set Joseph over all the land of Egypt. Moreover, Pharaoh said to Joseph; Though I am Pharaoh, yet without your permission no one shall raise his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.

§. Gen 44:18 . .Then Judah approached Joseph, and said; Oh my master, may your servant please speak a word in my master's ears, and do not be angry with your servant; for you are equal to Pharaoh.

The New Testament's Jesus informed his followers that their God was his God too.

§. John 20:17 . .Jesus said; Do not detain me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brethren and tell them; I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

Looking back over the Old Testament, Yhvh has never ruled His people directly. No, He has always, without exception, ruled via proxies; with leaders like Moses, like Joshua, like the Sanhedrin, like the Judges, and like the Kings. In point of fact, the throne of the Kings is clearly identified as Yhvh's throne.

§. 1Chrn 19:23 . .Solomon successfully took over the throne of Yhvh as king in his father David's place; and all went well with him.

I have it from good authority, that some rabbis of the past understood Ps 45:7-8 to actually apply to each reigning king of the Davidic dynasty; so that it is correct, and not blasphemous, to serve a reigning king of the Davidic dynasty as if he were God. No, they are not really God, but the ramification is that they sit in for God while seated upon Yhvh's throne ruling over Yhvh's people. Therefore, failure to worship and serve the Davidic kings as God is all the same as failure to worship and serve the true Yhvh.

David foresaw that one of his own posterity of kings would become higher in rank than himself though David is the patriarch of Davidic royalty.

§. Ps 110:1 . .Yhvh said to my 'adown; Sit at My right hand while I make your enemies your footstool.

(The reason I quoted the Hebrew words for "lord" is because the New Testament's koiné Greek fails to make a distinction between the two lords at Matt 22:44)

Normally patriarchs hold the higher rank among their own posterity. However, a Davidic king with the rank of God obviously outranks his own patriarch, and that's why David referred to his normally lower-ranking posterity as his 'adown— which means: master (cf. Gen 18:12, Gen 23:6, Gen 24:18).

As the patriarchal king of the Davidic dynasty, David has no master other than the True God. No man, and no potentate on earth, is of higher rank than David.

§. Ps 89:27-28 . .He shall say to Me; You are my father, my God, the rock of my deliverance. I will appoint him My firstborn, highest of the kings of the earth.

So then, the 'adown of Ps 110:1 obviously has to be someone with the rank of God because nobody can be David's master unless there is an intermediate rank between the firstborn and the father; which there isn't.

God and His anointed are often described in equally exalted terms, and similar reverence is required for both.

In Psalm 83:19, God is the supreme over all the earth; while in Dan 7:13-14, one like a son of man is supreme. Psalm 89:28 specifically designates a Davidic king as God's firstborn, highest of the kings of the earth. In Psalm 86:9, "all nations will come to bow down" to Yhvh. Yet in Psalm 72:11, all kings bow down to the Davidic king mentioned in verse 1.

In 1Chron 29:20, the people blessed The Lord and bowed their heads low not only to Yhvh but also to David. In Psalms 2:11 and 100:2, the rulers and peoples are exhorted to worship and serve Yhvh, while in Psalms 18:44 and 72:11, it is the Davidic king they must worship and serve.

If Psalm 45:7 means exactly what it says; then it proves that God has granted Davidic kings the status of divine beings. It doesn't mean they are True Gods. It only means that they have a right to all the respect and worship and reverence and service and allegiance that is due to a position of that ranking just as if God Himself occupied David's throne. Anyone who fails to provide that degree of respect to a Davidic king insults the dignity of God's name.

Jewish scholars have sometimes forced the translation of certain key words in Psalm 45 in order to avoid the powerful implications of the text. This is seen clearly in the 1917 JPS version, which renders Psalm 45:7 as "Your throne, given of God," The translators created the words "given of God" out of thin air.

The ArtScroll version is more acceptable with: "Your throne, O ruler, is forever and ever, (for) the scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom."

The word "ruler" is forcing a translation of 'elohiym to mean something other than God.

On the other hand, Gentile scholars, in narrowly applying the words to Jesus alone, have sometimes failed to explain the original context of the Psalm, which was addressed to an earthly king contemporary with the author of the Psalm.

The word 'elohim has other meanings than God. It can also refer to god, gods, angels, and/or civil authorities; all of which are, in a sense, divine beings. It is also important to note that in the ancient Near East, the kings of Mesopotamia and Egypt considered themselves, and were regarded as, true gods. That, however, was never the case in monotheistic Israel. Rather, the Davidic king was a highly exalted human, honored as God's unique son. In Psalm 45, the Hebrew language was stretched to its limit, speaking of the Davidic king as 'elohim, a divine being.

Failure to see the extreme exaltation of the Davidic kings is a grave handicap that prevents uninformed observers from understanding how the New Testament applies the Hebrew Scriptures to Jesus. Davidic kings are to be especially revered above all other world rulers on the whole planet— honored, respected, and obeyed in the very same way that God Himself should be honored, respected, and obeyed. Some of you reading this are not prepared to meet the next King of Israel. You would certainly no doubt insult him deeply with your currently low opinion of the Davidic dynasty. According to 1Chron 29:23, the Davidic throne is the throne of Yhvh— its occupant should therefore be treated accordingly.

§. Matt 1:23 . .and they shall call His name Immanuel; which is translated, "God with us."

Sometimes with the Bible, you have to really pay attention to language and grammar. Matt 1:23 doesn't say God named Jesus Immanuel, it says they shall call his name Immanuel— "they" being Jesus' fellow Israelis.

§. Matt 21:9-11 . .And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

§. Luke 7:16-17 . .Then fear came upon all, and they glorified God, saying; A great prophet has risen up among us, and; God has visited His people. And this report about Him went throughout all Judea and all the surrounding region.

But if you follow Jesus' exploits, you'll readily discover that many of his enemies did not believe that Jesus represented God nor that he was on a mission for God.

§. Matt 12:24-25 . .But when the Pharisees heard it, they said; This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons.

§. John 7:46-49 . .No one ever spoke the way this man does; the guards declared. You mean he has deceived you also? the Pharisees retorted. Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law: there is a curse on them.

Anyway; I'm going to deliberately mistranslate a portion of Matt 1:23. Watch for the error.

There is a big difference between someone who is God, and someone of whom people say God is with us. God had been absent from the Jews for more than 400 years before Jesus came along. Their last experience with God was Malachi 4:6, written sometime in the 5th century BC. Well, with the advent of Christ, God was back in-country; at least for a while anyway.

§. Php 2:6-7 …Who, being in the form of God, thought it not plunder to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

The New Testament Greek word for *equal in that passage is isos (ee'-sos); which means similar. Webster's defines *similar as having characteristics in common, alike in substance or essentials— implying the possibility of being mistaken one for the other.

The word *plunder speaks of things gained not by honest work, purchase, or merit; but gained by dishonesty, fraud, usurpation, or theft; viz: things taken without right to do so. People who accumulate things by plundering are grasping; which Webster's defines as: desiring something urgently and excessively, and often to the point of ruthlessness.

It's not wise to use that passage in Philippians to prove that Jesus was a human God prior to his crucifixion and resurrection. The very wording itself testifies that Christ was in the form of God prior to becoming a human being. It was as The Word that he was equal with God (John 1:1-3). But when The Word became a human being to die for the sins of the world, he voluntarily deposed himself and actually became lower in rank than not just God, but the angels too, and became really no different than any other Jewish man.

§. Heb 2:9 …But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death

§. Heb 2:14-17 ...Because God's children are human beings made of flesh and blood, Jesus also became flesh and blood by being born in human form. Because only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the Devil who had the power of death. Only in this way could he deliver those who have lived all their lives as slaves to the fear of dying. We all know that Jesus came to rescue the descendants of Abraham, not to rescue the angels. Therefore, it was necessary for Jesus to be in every respect like us, his brothers and sisters, so that he could be a merciful and faithful High Priest before God. He then could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people.

The man Jesus was promoted to the rank of God as a reward for his unusual degree of self-sacrifice and his heroic success on Calvary.

§. 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 one that will never be destroyed.

§. Matt 28:18 ...Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

§. Php 2:8-11 …And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Rome lost sight of the fact that the New Testament's Jesus was a genuine Hebrew human being. It should be easy to understand that nobody who descends from Abraham can possibly be God because Abraham descended from Adam who was a created being; whereas God isn't. So if the New Testament's Jesus descended from Abraham and Adam— which is easy to prove he did —then the only way he can be God is by the One True God promoting him to the rank of God; which is exactly how both the Old Testament and the New Testament view Messiah's divinity. So that Messiah's rank isn't an intrinsic divinity, but a conferred divinity; and Thomas was the very first apostle on record to vocalize it (John 20:26-28).

God's Word itself of course never lost its divine rank because The Word is intrinsically God; and God can't stop being Himself. But it's important to note that The Word's fleshly alter ego Jesus didn't share The Word's divine rank until after he was promoted to it because Jesus was a human being in every point; including an inferior ranking to the One True God and to the angels as well.

§. John 13:16 . .The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

§. Heb 2:9 . . But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

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

I just have to wonder how far people got in school who say things like that. Fact of the matter is: To say that Mary was the mother of God is to say that Jesus was not a full Jewish human being.

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

I'm only humbly accepting what the inspired Holy Bible itself testifies about the New Testament's Jesus. The Holy Bible— inspired by God's spirit —itself testifies that Jesus was born the son of God; not God The Son.

§. Luke 1:31-33 . .He will be very great, and will be called the son of the Most High.

God's Word deposed itself, and came into this world as a full Jewish human being subject to all the obligations and limitations imposed upon his fellow Jewish human beings.

§. Php 2:5-8 …Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, and was made in the likeness of human beings. Being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Are angels higher in rank than God? No, they're not. Are they equal in rank to God? No, they're not, So then, Jesus was way lower in rank than God because he was lower in rank than the angels.

§. Heb 2:9 . .But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus

In point of fact, the angels had to be commanded to worship Jesus because they would never have given a human being that degree of respect on their own without being told to.

§. Heb 1:6 . .And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says; And let all the angels of God worship him.

When you put the baby Jesus on a par with God, you are committing a terrible sin by suppressing the immutable testimony of the Holy Ghost. The baby was NOT on a par with God; it wasn't even on a par with angels; but was a full Jewish human being on a par with its fellow Jewish men.

§. Heb 2:16-17 …For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. It was necessary for him to be made like his [Jewish] brethren in all points so that he might be a sympathetic, and faithful high priest

Though God may feel compassion for me (e.g. John 3:16) He cannot truly empathize with me in any way at all. (Empathy is a step above sympathy. You can feel sorry for somebody without having personally experienced their circumstances yourself; whereas in empathy; you've been there.) God is above all my circumstances; and has never Himself experienced any of the problems and difficulties of living in this world as a human being. By being fully human himself, my savior is easily able to empathize; and to represent me before God with a human's intuition. He is a *faithful high priest in that my savior is just as human as I am; and because of that, he is far more inclined to plead my case with sensitivity and passion, than to plead it like an indifferent court-appointed lawyer who'd rather not be bothered.

Another tenuous proof that Mary was the mother of God cites Gabriel's announcement that Mary's baby would be called "the son of the Most High" (Luke 1:32). However, being the son of the Most High does not eo ipso make a human being God since all kings of the Davidic dynasty, beginning with David and Solomon, hold the rank of son of God, with David holding the senior position of firstborn.

§. 2Sam 7:11-17 . .Yhvh declares to you that Yhvh himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever. Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation.

§. Ps 89:20-27 . .I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him . . I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.

Many of Catholicism's errors pertaining to Mary's motherhood are the direct result of a shameful ignorance of Old Testament Messianic prophesies and predictions. People who attempt to interpret Mary's motherhood in the New Testament without a solid grasp of Messianic prophecies and predictions in the Old, are like a chat room moron pitching his camping tent in the direct path of hurricane Gustov. Had the moron taken time to check the latest weather report before selecting a camp site, he might have easily avoided disaster.

Not all Christians are permitted to grasp the complexities of The Godhead. 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 Godhead 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 Godhead 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 Godhead 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 Jesus' 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.

Actually, Jesus has been in possession of two bodies— the mortal body he was crucified in, and the immortal one in which he now resides. Which of those two bodies is the church— the mortal body or the immortal body? This is not a trick question; but rather, a very serious question because— stating the obvious —an immortal body cannot be hurt by the second death of Rev 20:11-15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I can easily guarantee you that very few practicing Catholics have enough faith in Jesus' statement to claim to possess immortality after dining upon a Host or imbibing the wine. Not happening.

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

Immunity from prosecution is every criminal's dream; and the current possession of every Gospel believer.

§. 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.

§. 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.

The gospel's immunity is not the same as diplomatic immunity; wherein foreign representatives 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. If God were to sweep people's sins under the rug and let it go at that, He would be no less insulting and unjust than diplomatic immunity. God can't forgive people under the table without seriously compromising His own integrity. No; God's law has to be vindicated and enforced to its maximum extent: somebody has to pay.

Jesus' 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

§. 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.

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, Jesus' 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 Bible'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 my sins up to a point; no, he paid for them all the way; so, in reality, Jesus' sheep 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 believers didn't die for all their sins when Christ was crucified; then they themselves will have to die for the balance later on, and they're yet in grave danger of justice and eternal suffering.

According to Rom 7:1-6, people like me are thought of as widows whose husbands died; thus freeing them to marry another man. According to Rom 3:24-26, and Rom 5:6-11, Rom 6:3-11, and Rom 8:28-39; I am so immune to God's Law; that I can now look God right in the eye, and in all honesty, and a good conscience say; "I am coming to Heaven and not even You can stop me now."

In conclusion; the Law of God has been thoroughly vindicated in me in that I have been dragged all the way through God's criminal justice system via Jesus' crucifixion. I myself have never complied with His Law; so that I became worthy of some serious retribution. Well; thanks be to God that his own beloved kin felt sorry enough for me to take the heat. God is happy that His Law has been vindicated (Rom 3:23-26); and I am happy that Jesus paid my debts to God's law— which of course makes Jesus my redeemer. Redeemers make bail for you, and pay off things like fines, mortgages, and credit card debt when you quite frankly have absolutely nothing with which to pay yourself.

Although I have a good number of legitimate reasons for renouncing Catholic Christianity; it's mostly because I've been granted immunity from prosecution by God's Law (John 5:24, Rom 5:6-11, Rom 6:3-11, Rom 8:29-39, 1Thss 5:9, Col 2:12-14, Col 3:1-4, Heb 10:14). You see, a person with immunity doesn't need Rome anymore. Its theocratic monarchy no longer serves me any useful purpose whatsoever. I don't need it, so why should I stay with it? That would be just about as stupid as a person with all the money in the world like Bill Gates taking out a loan from a shylock at two points a week to finance the development of a new software program.

If only the average pew warmer knew the Gospel like it really is; then they would be overjoyed; and agree whole-heartedly with me that the angel who announced Jesus' birth knew precisely what he was talking about when it brought tidings of great joy (Luke 2:10).

The Roman church doesn't bring tidings of great joy. No, it brings tidings of slavery to a hierarchy, slavery to a magisterium, slavery to commandments, slavery to rules, slavery to rituals, slavery to rites, slavery to holy days of obligation, slavery to a confessional, slavery to a catechism, slavery to Councils, slavery to a Eucharist, slavery to legends and traditions, and slavery to fear of the wrath of God. I have been set at liberty from all that; plus I have immunity; thus I have great joy.

OBJECTION : Your joy is premature. You have yet to stand before the throne of God and be judged.

That objector is a dunce. You know something; this is precisely why professing Christians like that are on their way to the Bible's hell: they just don't listen.

I am a believer; and according to the testimony of the lord and master of New Testament Christianity as an expert witness; believers are NOT going to stand trial for their sins.

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

According to Christ, when I heeded his message and trusted in his God, I was given eternal life; which is a kind of life that cannot die. Therefore it is impervious to the wages of sin.

§. Rom 6:23 . .For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

§. Rom 8:1-2 . .Therefore, 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.

In point of fact; not only have I already passed from a status of death to one of life; but I am also already a citizen of the Kingdom.

§. Col 1:12-13 . .giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light. For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.

My judgment, as regards Heaven and Hell, is past tense; it already took place with Jesus' crucifixion (Rom 6:3-11).

Peter gives me the right to rejoice right now, rather than wait and see if I have cause to rejoice later (1Pet 1:8).

If you're still not getting it, then not only do I pity your future, but I highly recommend that you toss religion. Yes, you're just frittering away your time and could spend it better elsewhere like playing video poker, trimming the shrubs, shopping for socks, or vacuuming the floors. The gospel's immunity is not for you, and instead of paying for your sins on Christ's cross, you will pay for them all alone at the Great White Throne judgment of Rev 20:11-15; and I guarantee you nobody but nobody goes to Heaven from that judgment because that is a judgment for the Dead rather than for those who got themselves transferred from the Dead to the Living while they were still here.

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

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

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

§. Rom 8:15-16 ...For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received a spirit of adoption by which we call out; Dad! Father. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are God's kin.

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

Those two words— Abba and Father —are an odd pair together. The first word, Abba, is of Chaldee origin. And it's not translated; it's the exact word: In Aramaic, Abba means father. But not as a title; it's a vocative. Like this: the noun *dad is a title when my wife and son are talking about me off to the side. But when my son calls out to get my attention, then *dad becomes a vocative; but only for him, because he alone is my son, not some other kid.

The second word, Father, is from the Greek: pater. It's another noun that means father. But in a much broader way. It can imply a parent, an ancestor; or a relative. So when you put the two together, the spirit of adoption comes out something like this:

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

Question: What about The Lord's prayer of Matt 6:9-13. Isn't that what Jesus taught his students to recite?

§. Matt 6:9 . .In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.

The Lord's prayer wasn't intended to be recited like a rote mantra; but rather, as an example: and in point of fact, you won't find that prayer prayed by anybody else but Jesus in the entire New Testament. I would have you to particularly note that the object of prayer in Jesus' example is his Father; not his mom or any of the departed saints.

If you choose to recite the Lord's Prayer, be advised that you will be plagiarizing someone else's prayer. It won't be your own, no, it's The Lord's because I've a suspicion that he looked towards Heaven when he spoke it; viz: it was a real prayer. Leading by example is very effective.

Question: Well, what about the Psalms? Surely you don't object to reciting those prayers.

I object to reciting the Psalms just as strongly as I object to reciting any other rote prayer. The Psalms were true prayers prayed from the heart and then written down by inspiration so people seeking an honest rapport with God would have models how to go about it.

§. Rom 15:4-5 . .For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

If you recite the Psalms, you will be plagiarizing someone else's prayers as your own instead of using them for what they were intended; "for our learning."

Back in the mid-90's, the Catholic grandmother (call her Jenna) of a Catholic friend of ours died (call him Frank). Jenna and Frank were the best of buddies and her passing really broke his heart and left him with a big empty hole in his life. Some time afterwards, I wrote to Frank and posed a serious question.

"Frank, what if grandma Jenna went to Hell? Can you imagine the grief and the worry she is suffering right now thinking of the very real possibility that you too, her precious, beloved grandson, will die and follow her down there and she has no way to warn you?"

For many Catholics, the only good thing they have to look forward to in the afterlife is a family reunion with loved ones down in the dungeons of Hell. It's a terrible thought.

If you are a true Catholic, then you have no choice but to answer "I don't know" because Rome cannot guarantee anybody a safe passage to the afterlife, not even for its Popes nor even for an outstanding nun like Teresa of Calcutta (a.k.a. Kolkata).

In Catholicism, it is curse-worthy to presume oneself to be perfectly safe from eternal suffering. That includes presuming your children are perfectly safe.

It's tragic, but true anyway; that there are Catholic parents bringing children into the world destined to bake in Hell's ovens. It would have been far better for those parents to neuter themselves rather than to later realize that just to satisfy their selfish, carnal lusts; they put their own flesh and blood at risk of eternal torment.

If you are a Catholic of integrity, then you have to answer; "I don't know" because Rome cannot guarantee anybody a safe passage to the afterlife; no, not for its Popes, nor even for an outstanding nun like Teresa of Calcutta (a.k.a. Kolkata).

If you are a conscientious Catholic of integrity, then you have to answer; "I don't know." because Catholics are curse-worthy to believe otherwise.

According to Rome's interpretation of Paul's writings, no one is permitted to even so much as think of themselves as Heaven-worthy.

§. 1Cor 4:3-5 …What about me? Have I been faithful? Well, it matters very little what you or anyone else thinks. I don't even trust my own judgment on this point. My conscience is clear, but that isn't what matters. It is the Lord himself who will examine me and decide. So be careful not to jump to conclusions before the Lord returns as to whether or not someone is faithful. When the Lord comes, he will bring our deepest secrets to light and will reveal our private motives. And then God will give to everyone whatever praise is due.

No doubt all will see Jesus eventually; some right away for blessing and some later at Rev 20:11-15 for cursing, because God has delegated the responsibility of judging mankind to His own son (Acts 17:31). But the objection iss essentially a non response to a question that Catholicism can't answer; which is: Where will you go when you die?

In the book of Revelation, human beings face one of two destinies: incineration in a flaming liquid (Rev 20:11-15), or citizenship in a New Cosmos (Rev 21:1-8). Which of those two is your destiny? If you are a true Catholic, then you have no choice but to answer; "I don't really know."

In Catholicism, it is a sin against the Holy Ghost to presume oneself to be perfectly safe from eternal suffering. That includes presuming sacred cows like Teresa of Calcutta (a.k.a. Kolkata) are perfectly safe. No; nobody is perfectly safe from retribution in Catholicism; ergo: no Catholic knows for certain where they'll go when they die. Catholics who profess otherwise just simply don't understand how precarious their situation really is. We used to think our chances were better than others because we were Catholics. But in point of fact, our chances were no better because we were always just one(1) unabsolved mortal sin away from Hell and eternal punishment. Catholics are in just as much danger of going to Hell as everybody else because there's no favoritism with God.

§. Rom 2:6-11 …God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.

Council of Trent, Canon 16 . .If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

That anathema includes presuming sacred cows like Teresa of Calcutta are perfectly safe. No; nobody is perfectly safe from retribution in Catholicism, not even its Popes; ergo: no Catholic knows for certain where they'll go when they die. Catholics who profess otherwise just simply don't understand how precarious their situation really is because every Catholic is just one(1) un-absolved mortal sin away from Hell and eternal suffering no matter how good a Catholic they were in the past.

§. 1Cor 4:3-5 . .But to me it is a very small thing that I should be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.

I used to think my chances were better than ordinary people because I was a Catholic. But in point of fact, my chances were worse because since I was a professing Catholic, then God would be holding me accountable to comply with everything Rome teaches and stands for: all the commandments, all the dogma, all the rituals, all the traditions, all the Councils, all the Bulls, all the rites, all the holy days of obligation, all the whole entire Catechism— everything —and that's why Catholics go to Hell just like everybody else because there's no favoritism with God.

OBJECTION : Sure there's favoritism with God. The good and holy are favorites and go to Heaven. The bad and evil go to Hell.

What that objector described wasn't favoritism; that was justice. Let me expand a little more on what I mean by favoritism.

A mother has two boys. One is a cute, charming little guy, with a sweet personality whom she loves very much: mommy's little buddy. His brother is unattractive and bratty; he's homely, insolent, gets on his mother's nerves, and treats her like dirt. One day, the boys get a craving for one of mom's famous chocolate chip cookies that she stores in a secret (so she thought) cookie jar. Subsequently; both boys raid the secret jar and sneak a cookie without her permission.

Later, when mom discovers their deed, she spanks the brat and grounds him from Sponge Bob and Nintendo DS for a week; but lets mommy's little buddy off with only a scolding. That's favoritism: as evidenced by the disparity in punishment meted for the very same crime.

There was a time when I expected God would show me some favoritism just because of who I was. Other people deserved to go to Hell, yes; but I was special: surely He wouldn't think I deserved it. After all, I was a Catholic; and doesn't that count for something? But to my horror, I discovered God is impartial; He's indifferent to labels and affiliations. Nobody's special.

§. Mark 12:30 . . Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.

I categorized those two commandments as old because Christianity's commandments do not hang on them. No; Jesus merely parroted Moses.

§. Deut 10:12-13 . . What doth Yhvh thy God require of thee, but to fear Yhvh thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve Yhvh thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, to keep the commandments of Yhvh, and His statutes

§. John 13:34 . . A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another even as I have loved you.

Jesus taught the Jews (as per Moses' covenanted law) to love their neighbors as themselves, but he taught his followers to love each other not as themselves, but as Christ: and his is a sacrificial kind of love.

§. 1John 3:16 . . Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

§. 1John 4:10-11 . . Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if that's the way God loved us, then we ought to be loving one another in the same manner.

The epistles contain many Christ's commandments, and every one of them hang on his new commandment. People who love Christ will obey them.

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

If a person's belief system is based upon Deut 10:12-13 and Lev 19:18, then they are not yet loving the New Testament's Christ and keeping his commandments; and they need to upgrade their belief system to John 13:34— which, I'll tell you right now, is impossible without supernatural assistance.

§. Ezk 36:26-27 . . And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a tender heart; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My edicts and faithfully do whatever I decide.

The Catholic religion is an intrinsically unrighteous religion because its plan of salvation is essentially a merit system based upon performance: a blend of faith and works; so that even if a Catholic had all the faith necessary to heal the sick, move a mountain, and pray down fire out of Heaven; they could yet still go to Hell if their works are not up to an acceptable level of consistent performance.

§. Matt 7:24-27 . .Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.

So then, even if a Catholic had all the faith in the universe, and yet fails to exemplify The Beatitudes (which are only a small portion of The Sermon On The Mount), then they will fail to obtain The Beatitudes' attendant blessings; au contraire, they will obtain just the opposite; viz: they will not be shown mercy, they will not enter the kingdom of heaven, they will not inherit the earth, they will not be called a son of God; and their future will be an utter ruin.

§. Heb 6:7-8 . .For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

§. Jas 1:22-25 . .And remember, it is a message to obey, not just to listen to. If you don't obey, you are only fooling yourself. For if you just listen and don't obey, it is like looking at your face in a mirror but doing nothing to improve your appearance. You see yourself, walk away, and forget what you look like. But if you keep looking steadily into God's perfect law— the law that sets you free —and if you do what it says and don't forget what you heard, then God will bless you for doing it.

Any Christian denomination that requires its adherents to comply with commandments in order to be worthy to escape eternal suffering rather than depending entirely upon the kindness and generosity of God; is a religion of law that condemns its members to a status that the Bible calls: fallen from grace.

§. Gal 5:3-5 . .For if you are trying to make yourselves righteous with God by keeping commandments, then you have been severed from Christ! You have fallen from grace.

§. 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.

Following is a brief perspective of the Christian's relationship to the commandments.

§. Luke 1:5-6 . .In the time of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all The Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

Is Luke saying that Zechariah and his wife were 100% compliant with the commandments?

No; he isn't saying that at all. He's saying they were 100% compliant with all the Lord's commandments and regulations.

Those "regulations" include the Aaronic qorbanot system (for which Zechariah was a priest) which is designed to atone for one's failings to comply with the commandments. Moses' covenanted law is a two-part system consisting of civil law and religious law. When Aaron's constituents fail in the one, they have the option of resorting to the other as a means of restoring peace between themselves and Yhvh.

Yes, they are; and refusal to obey devalues scofflaws to the level of a little squeaking gerbil.

§. Matt 5:19 . .Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

§. John 14:21 . .He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me.

§. John 15:10 . .If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love.

§. 1John 2:3-4 . .And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith "I know Him" and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

§. John 5:2-3 . .By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.

§. 1John 3:4 . .Whosoever commits sin transgresses the commandments: for sin is transgression of the commandments.

§. Rom 6:15 . .What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? God forbid!

§. Rom 6:12-14 . .Let not sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

§. Rom 6:19 . .For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

§. Rom 12:1-2 . .I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you all present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

When born-again Christians break a commandment; should they resort to Aaron's qorbanot system to restore peace between themselves and Yhvh?

No. They should resort to Christ's; which is of the order of Melchizedek rather than Aaron's.

§. Heb 5:4-6 . .So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to him, "Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee" and also "Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

§. Heb 5:8-10 . .He became, to all those who heed him, the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

§. Heb 6:19-20 . .This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

§. 1John 2:1-2 . .My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate, mollify, placate, and/or sweeten.

Melchizedek was a priest of the Bible's God who lived in Abraham's day prior to the birth of Levi, Moses, and Aaron; and subsequently prior to the Aaronic priesthood (Gen 14:17-20). Aaron's priesthood— along with its attendant retinue of under-priests —is the priesthood for people whose religion consists of The Commandments.

§. Heb 8:4 . . For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to The Commandments;

Aaron's priesthood then, is an earthly religion, while Christ's priesthood is an heavenly religion; and The Commandments are definitely an earthly religion because the Bible says that the man who does them shall live by them; viz: they are a code to live by but not a code to go to Heaven by.

§. Lev 18:4-5 . .You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am Yhvh your God. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them

§. Rom 10:5 . . For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of The Commandments: The man who does those things shall live by them.

§. Gal 3:11-12 . . But that no one is righteous by The Commandments in the sight of God is evident, for: The just shall live by faith. Yet The Commandments are not of faith, but: The man who does them shall live by them.

In contrast, Melchizedek's priesthood had no connection to The Commandments whatsoever; therefore, his constituents (which included Abraham) were not required to obey The Commandments because they didn't become law till a few hundred years later (Gal 3:17). So then it was, and still is, impossible for a Melchizedekian priest's constituents to be prosecuted for breaking The Commandments.

§. Rom 5:13 . . For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Jesus is clearly stated to be a priest whose order is patterned after Melchizedek's.

§. Heb 5:4-6 . . So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to him: Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee; and also: Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

ergo: People trying to earn salvation points via The Commandments, are mixed up with the wrong priesthood because Melchizedek's order doesn't mediate for people whose religion consists of The Commandments. They are inadvertently relying upon the now-obsolete Aaronic order rather than Melchizedek's; viz: Jesus is of no use to them whatsoever; and they are in grave danger of the wrath of God.

§. Gal 3:10 . . For as many as are dedicated to The Commandments are under a curse; for it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continually abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them. (Deut 27:26)

§. Heb 7:11 . . Now if perfection was through the Aaronic priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received The Commandments), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

The answer to that question is quite simple. No flesh will be made righteous in God's sight by keeping The Commandments simply because no flesh can obey them consistently; and consistence is essential if one is to obtain eternal life by means of The Commandments (Deut 27:26, Rom 3:19-20, Gal 3:10). Therefore, a Melchizedekian priesthood is mankind's only hope of escape from retribution because Aaron's religion has never been designated a means of eternal salvation; while Christ's is.

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

§. Heb 5:8-10 . . He became, to all those who heed him, the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Religions that require their adherents to comply with The Commandments in order to be worthy to escape eternal suffering rather than depending entirely upon Jesus' priesthood; are religions that doom their members to a status that the Bible calls: fallen from grace and alienated from Christ.

§. Gal 5:3-5 . . For if you are trying to make yourselves righteous with God by keeping The Commandments, then you have been severed from Christ! You have fallen from grace.

§. 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 The 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 rely upon Jesus Christ.

Rome's priesthood is actually an unholy amalgam of Aaron's and Melchizedek's because it attempts to mediate for people whose salvation depends upon obedience to The Commandments and upon trust in Christ's blood both at the same time; which is a man-made hybrid priesthood that cannot be found recommended anywhere in the New Testament.

So why am I putting such an emphasis on the Melchizedekian priesthood? Because an understanding of that priesthood is an essential prerequisite to interpreting a difficult legal principle like Heb 10:26. But unfortunately, much of what I've posted typically results in a ping on the internet because a comprehensive study of the Melchizedekian order is pretty much limited to Christians whose spiritual digestion is a cut above the average rank and file pew warmer. (Heb 5:9-14, Heb 6:1-9)

FAQ : If there were no commandments in Cain's day; then how did God hold him accountable for murdering his brother Abel? And what about the Flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah? How was God able to justify all that if there was no sin before the commandments?

§. Rom 5:13 . .For until the Law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no Law.

God couldn't justify prosecuting Cain for murder because He had not yet enacted a commandment against murder in his day.

The very same circumstance existed at the time of the Flood. Though the earth was filled with lawlessness and violence at that time; God couldn't prosecute the antediluvians for breaking the commandments. He eradicated those people not because they broke the commandments; but rather, because they were toxic; same with Sodom and Gomorrah.

That is a very important principle: viz; biblical law does not have ex post facto jurisdiction (Gal 3:17). However, after the Law was enacted, everything changed. Now God has a legal basis for coming down on everybody.

§. Rom 3:19 . .Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rome's constituents, like Aaron's, are subject to the commandments. However, since Christ is a priest of the order of Melchizedek, his constituents are not subject to the commandments. Those laws are Aaron's jurisdiction; not Christ's (Heb 8:4). Therefore, when Christ's constituents break one of the commandments, they are in no danger of Hell and eternal suffering because both Christ and his constituents are outside Aaron's jurisdiction. (Rom 8:1-4, Rom 6:14)

A priest of the order of Melchizedek is obviously the mediator of choice for people looking for immunity from prosecution for breaking the commandments. The Aaronic order of priests are themselves subject to the commandments; but Melchizedek's order isn't; no, it's priests are above the commandments. This is easily seen in Abraham paying tithes to Mel in Gen 14:17-20, about whom the Bible says the lesser is blessed of the better; and Levi himself paid tithes to Mel; thus indicating that Mel's priesthood overrules, and is superior to, Aaron's. (Heb 7:4-10)

Rome's priesthood, of course cannot offer the kind of immunity I'm talking about because Rome's priests, like Aaron's, are subject to the commandments and cannot immunize their own selves from prosecution, let alone their constituents.

§. Heb 6:18-20 . .we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a High Priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

FAQ : What if Christ's constituents become toxic? Might God eradicate them like he did the antediluvians and Sodom and Gomorrah?

§. Rom 8:12-13 . .Brethren, we have an obligation— but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live

§. Rom 11:20-23 . .Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

§. 1Cor 10:11-12 . .These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us. . Therefore, let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

FAQ : High Priests are essentially mediators who effect, and preserve, harmony between God and Man. Since a High Priest of the order of Melchizedek doesn't mediate for people whose religion consists of the commandments; then what people's religion does Christ mediate for?

Christ mediates for people whose religion consists of eternal life— all of his constituents have it.

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

Jesus' sheep are a father's gift to his son— to whom then the son grants eternal life. So then, people claiming to be Jesus' sheep, while not possessing eternal life, are not a gift from God to His son.

§. John 6:37 . .All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

§. John 6:39-40 . .And this is the will of Him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son, and believes in him, shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

§. John 17:2 . .For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those You have given him.

Jesus' sheep (a.k.a. his constituents) are believers. In the passages below, that relate belief to eternal life; note the grammatical tense of the "have" verb. It's present tense, not future, indicating that believers have eternal life right now: no delay, and no waiting period.

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

According to God's testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to His son, people who don't have eternal life, do not have His son; viz: they are quite Christless.

Since Christ is the High Priest of Christianity, then any, and all, of his under-priests would of necessity be in the jurisdiction of the order of Melchizedek rather than Aaron's. Is there a New Testament order of under-priests? Yes; and every one of Jesus' sheep are in it.

§. 1Pet 2:9-10 . .But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

§. Rev 1:4-6 . .John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

§. Rev 5:9-10 . .And they sang a new song, saying; Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

§. Rev 20:6 . .Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

OBJECTION : Christ created an official priesthood with these words: "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." (Matt 16:19)

When one takes into consideration 1Pet 2:9-10, Rev 1:4-6, Rev 5:9-10, and Rev 20:6 it becomes instantly obvious that Jesus wasn't just ordaining the apostle to whom he spoke those words, but every last one of his sheep; both lay and clergy. The apostles of course are the top dogs of Christianity, but they certainly did not have a monopoly on its priesthood.

It is Yhvh's wish that all of His people be priests (Ex 19:5-6). His wish is a reality in Christ.

OBJECTION : What is all this weird gibberish? And isn't the so-called "order of Melchizedek" a proprietary Mormon thing?

That objector is in the dark because the information about Christ's comparison to Aaron and Melchizedek is insider information and pretty much restricted to mature Christians.

§. Heb 5:9-14 . .He became to all those who heed him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

. . For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

§. Rom 5:13 . .For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

The reason the objector believes that passage is incorrect is because he does not understand absolutes; ergo: his concepts of right and wrong are the concepts of a child. In order to bring him up to speed it would be necessary to start from scratch with the basics.

§. Heb 6:1-3 . .Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we shall do, if God permits.

Obviously, in that objector's case, God didn't permit advancement; so they remain held back in "elementary teaching".

§. Mark 10:17-21 . .And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him; Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

. . And Jesus said unto him; Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

. . And he answered and said unto him; Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him; One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

How many professing Catholics reading this have kept all the commandments; yet failed to obey Jesus' command to sell all that they have, and distribute the proceeds to the poor?

§. Matt 6:19-21 . .Don't stockpile wealth and valuables here on earth, where they can be eaten by moths and/or evaporate; and where thieves break in and steal. Stockpile your wealth and valuables in heaven, where they will never become eaten by moths, nor evaporate; and where they will be safe from thieves. Wherever your wealth and valuables are, there your heart will be also.

I entertain very little doubt that the average pew warmer is keeping far more for themselves than they're expending towards God's best interests (cf. Matt 25:14-30).

Here's another of Jesus' commands that I challenge you to find a Catholic in strict compliance.

§. Matt 5:29-30 . .If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into Hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into Hell.

I have yet to meet a Catholic who has complied with the command to mutilate themselves and amputate body parts in order to keep themselves out of Hell. Why? Because in spite of their mouthing it to the contrary, they simply don't think Jesus really means what he says.

BTW: The Greek word for Hell in the excerpt above is geena which is not the same as hades; which just means the netherworld— the afterlife destination all the dead, both the good and the bad. However, geena is only for the bad and described by Jesus as similar to Jerusalem's ancient landfill where fires were kept burning day and night to dispose of a continuous waste stream of urban refuse and the bodies of dead animals and low income citizens. The people who go there become infected with a special kind of fire-proof worm (Mark 9:43-48).

The average pew warmer loves to boast of Jesus' sayings as solid Church beliefs and practices; and admires his teachings from the Sermon On The Mount, but rarely takes those sayings and teachings serious enough to make an effort to actually exemplify them; and yet they still pray up a storm with rote prayers memorized from catechism to tidy up their pious façade.

§. Matt 15:7-8 . .Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying; These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Prior giving up on Rome; I was a Catholic for 24+ years. Before consuming the Host on Sunday mornings, I typically went to confession sometime during Saturday.

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 good numbers of professing Catholics are unaware that violations of the law of the land are just as much in need of confession as violations of God's commandments.

According to Matt 22:21, Rom 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and 1Pet 2:13-16, professing Catholics 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 Jesus, and to Paul's and Peter's mandates, every time a Catholic J-walks, runs a red light, coasts through a STOP sign, passes on the shoulder, engages in road rage, exceeds the posted speed limit, makes an illegal U-turn, fails to activate their turn signal, tail-gates, feeds a limited-time parking meter, crosses the street against a Don't Walk signal, makes an unsafe lane change, drives under the influence, throws litter out the window, etc, etc, etc; they are in active rebellion against the very person whom they profess to worship and serve as the sovereign Monarch of the entire cosmos including all its forms of life.

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."

OBJECTION : I don't want to nit-pick here but in the Soviet Union it was against the "law of the land" to even believe in God. I don't know but maybe compliance with that law makes sense to a Protestant.

The primary guideline in obedience to civil government is: We must obey God rather than Man (Acts 5:29, cf. Ex 1:15-20)

Since a law that forbids belief in the Bible's God is contrary to the Bible God's best interests, and a presumptuous countermand of the very first of the Ten Commandments (cf. Mark 12:30) then it becomes essential for professing Xians, both Catholic and non Catholic, to disappoint the one in order to stay in the good graces of the other. However, I simply do not believe the Bible's God objects to civil traffic laws since those kinds of laws aren't contrary to God's best interests, but rather, are in the best interests of both God and Man.

Here in the state of Oregon, we have a mandatory seat belt law, and the State's rule of the road is: Click It; or Ticket. Oregon Catholics who fail to Click It need to bring that up in a timely manner at their next confession.

§. Prv 28:13 . .He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion.

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.

§. 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 Jesus' 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 purification? No. He went out and committed suicide instead.

§. 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.

Do you see what happened on that occasion? 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.

§. Matt 18:21-22 …Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven.

If you were asked to sit down and compile a list of common sins, could you list seven columns of 70 sins each for a grand total of 490 sins without naming some more than once? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure you would probably have to list repeat offenses in order to total 490 sins.

So then, if The Lord requires men to forgive each other's repeat offenses, don't you think it would hypocritical of God not to expect the same thing of Himself? Yes, it would be hypocritical of God to practice a double standard.

§. 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.

Is that verse saying repeat offenders, regardless of their religious affiliation, are automatically going to Hell? No, I don't believe it's saying that at all. I believe it's saying that there is only one atonement in existence that will work for repeat offenders; and that's Christ's crucifixion. Refuse it, and you're out of options because there just simply aren't any other sacrifices available; not even in Old Testament Judaism; which is the only other God-given religion in the whole Bible.

§. 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.

Is it an abuse of the system to keep coming back to confession with the same old sins all the time? Well; let me ask you this. Do you keep coming back to wash the same old face in the bathroom sink all the time? Do you keep coming back to wash the same old clothes in the laundry room all the time?

You see, it's not so much an individual's sins that concern God, but the individual's association with Himself that matters most (1John 1:3-7); and if He has to keep running your soul through the wash tub every day in order to associate with you, God will do it and not complain; just as a loving mother scrubs her own little children day after day, often from the very same filth, without complaining because that's just what loving mothers do —and God will do it each and every day too because John says God is "faithful" which Webster's defines as firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty.

§. 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.

I don't see anything in there about new sins, nor do I see anything in there about old sins; nope, I just see sins; and I also see a reliable God.

OBJECTION : You are totally ignoring confession's prerequisite of contrition!

That objector is an excellent example of the propensity of human nature to embellish the Bible and actually make Christianity more strict and more burdensome than it really is.

The first instance of that practice was Eve's response to the Serpent when it asked her if God said they couldn't eat the forbidden fruit. Part of her reply, when she supposedly quoted God, was that they not only couldn't eat it, but they couldn't touch it either (Gen 3:2-3). But did God actually say they couldn't touch it? No. Here's what He really said:

§. Gen 2:16-17 …And The Lord God commanded the man; You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

In your honest opinion, who is the more credible speaker: the woman, or The Lord God? Duh.

The only stipulation in 1John 1:9 for obtaining forgiveness and purification is confession, and nothing else.

§. 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.

That objector's personal concept of confession apparently includes additional components as per CCC 1451 of the Catechism; but according to Webster's, confession just means to disclose one's faults. According to John's testimony, God is faithful to forgive and to purify if one does only that and nothing else. Webster's defines faithful as: firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty.

§. Ps 32:1-2 …Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom Yhvh imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

To lack guile is to be brutally candid and report your sins in all their lurid details, glossing over nothing, and leaving nothing out, no matter how disgusting, nor shameful, nor unchristian, nor illegal, nor immoral, nor unethical, nor embarrassing, nor humiliating, nor private the details may be.

§. Ps 32:3-4 …When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah.

The sin that David kept silent about was his affair with Bathsheba; which involved premeditated murder and adultery. David was avoiding contact with God over that, and it was actually effecting his health until he finally came out with it.

§. Ps 32:5 …I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto Yhvh; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

The only stipulation that David had to meet in order to obtain forgiveness and purification for his deplorable crimes was admission of guilt: that's all, nothing more.

According to David, there does come a time when it's too late to obtain forgiveness and purification via confession.

§. Ps 32:6-7…For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him. Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah.

It's wise to be prompt with confessions in order to remain in God's good graces at all times because you just never know when He might get fed up and decide to move against you for archiving your sins rather than disclosing them in a timely manner.

§. Pro 28:13 …He who conceals his sins shall not prosper; but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.

§. 1Cor 11:30-32 . .If we would but judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by The Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Baptism
Eucharist
Reconciliation
Confirmation
Marriage
Holy Orders
Anointing of the Sick (a.k.a. Extreme Unction a.k.a. Last Rites)

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

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 the Catholic mind; pain and suffering = holiness and purification.

(It's ironic that mandatory reciting of the Hail Mary and the Our Father as penance relegates those sacred prayers to the level of suffering.)

Though the religion of Catholic Christianity includes the practice of penance in its confessional recipe, biblical Christianity does not; as evidenced in the apostle John's inspired prescription for the forgiveness of sins.

§. 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.

All that John requires is admission of guilt, and God is guaranteed to forgive and purify.

Catholic penance presupposes the necessity of redeeming one's self; which is totally contrary to biblical Christianity's foundation for absolution. John said God is "just" in His forgiveness; which simply means that God doesn't sweep sins under the rug, but that He nailed them to Jesus' cross and satisfied justice against the sinner in Jesus' hide instead of the sinner's hide.

Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate, mollify, placate, sweeten. In other words, Jesus' crucifixion is 100% adequate to satisfy the law of God's demand for its pound of flesh. The practice of penance insinuates that Jesus' crucifixion is inadequate— that it needs to be garnished with one's own self-inflicted punishment to compensate for their sins in some way.

It needs to be emphasized that the pronouns we and us and our in 1John 1:9 in no way apply to just any old pew warmer who happens to be looking in. John's epistle was written specifically to a very special category of believers.

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

The identity of the special category to whom John addressed his letter is defined as those who are in the right-now possession of eternal life because John's "have" verb is in the present tense indicating the recipients of his epistle were already in possession of eternal life even before the letter arrived.

Therefore, professing Xians who do not have eternal life are simply not true believers; no, on the contrary, they're artificial believers; and consequently, forgiveness via 1John 1:9 is not available to them.

The Greek word for sanctify is hagiazo (hag-ee-ad'-zo) which just simply means to set aside; viz: to "consecrate" and/or "designate" something for God's purposes. Some Christians prefer to use the word "dedicate" rather than consecrate since consecration sounds a bit ritualistic. Others prefer the word "commitment". All four of those words— designate, dedicate, consecrate, and commitment —accurately express the meaning of hagiazo.

There are two sanctification processes in Christianity. One is Christ's crucifixion; which served to justify believers and set them aside for God once and for all.

§. John 17:19-20 . .And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.

§. Heb 10:1-10 . .For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

. . But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith; "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."

. . Above when he said; "Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein"; which are offered by the law; then said he; "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God." He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all

Catholic friend, if Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection haven't sufficed to set you aside for God once and for all, then you are obviously not yet a beneficiary of the sanctification spoken of in Heb 10:1-10.

Additionally, sanctification is not only a one-time event, but also an active, on-going process whereby ransomed sinners become more and more pleasing to God while they live out their lives.

§. Gen 17:1 . . And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Yhvh appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Walking with God is something you have to want to do, and something you have to do voluntarily; in other words; you have to yield; which Webster's defines as: to surrender or relinquish control.

§. Rom 6:13 . . Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

§. Rom 12:1-2 . . I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

One's personal conduct is usually the very first thing God wants dedicated to Him before they get the notion to run off and perform some great work in the name of Christ.

§. 2Tim 2:20-21 . . In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

§. 1 John 1:5-7 . . This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Fellowship is from the Greek word koinonia (koy-nohn-ee'-ah) which means: partnership, participation, and/or association. Church attendance is not the same as koinonia; no, anybody can go to church, even the Devil, and he often does.

§. 2Cor 11:14-15 . . Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness

In order to partnership with God, one must walk with God, just as Abram was urged to in Gen 17:1. Church attendance may be a part of one's walk with God, but it should never be used as a substitute. That's sort of like people who only go to church on Easter, and then the rest of the year live, act, think, and conduct themselves like heathens.

How does one renew their mind in a way that makes it possible to test and approve what God's will is? Easy. By intense Bible study.

Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) . .the Scriptures are sacred and canonical because "having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author"

§. John 8:31-32 . .If you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

God, right now, is actively utilizing His providential skills and abilities to eventually bring all Jesus' sheep up to a level of total commitment to Himself.

§. Php 1:6 . .And I am sure that God, who began the good work within you, will continue His work until it is finally finished on that day when Christ Jesus comes back again.

§. Php 2:12-13 . .Dearest friends, you were always so careful to follow my instructions when I was with you. And now that I am away you must be even more careful to put into action God's saving work in your lives, obeying God with deep reverence and fear. For God is working in you, giving you the desire to obey him and the power to do what pleases him.

§. Jer 31:31-34 . .See, a time is coming— testifies Yhvh —when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant which they broke, though I espoused them— testifies Yhvh.

. . But such is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after these days— testifies Yhvh: I will put my Teachings into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer will they need to teach one another and say to one another, "Heed the Lord"; for all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall heed Me— testifies Yhvh.

§. Ezk 36:24-28 . .And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a tender heart; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules.

One of the New Testament Greek words for redemption is apolutrosis (ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis); which means: to ransom in full.

Webster's defines ransom as a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity.

It's extremely important not to confuse the sanctification process as a means of obtaining the ransom. The sanctification process is absolutely not a factor in the ransom; so it isn't necessary to be an achiever in sanctification in order to merit the ransom— after all, the ransom is gratuitous rather than meritorious.

§. Eph 2:8-9 . .God spared you by His graciousness when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gratuity from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.

§. Rom 5:6-11 . .You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been acquitted by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

§. Rom 6:6-11 . .For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

§. 1Pet 1:18-20 . .For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. He paid for you with the precious lifeblood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him for this purpose long before the world began, but now in these final days, he was sent to the earth for all to see. And he did this for you.

In the plan of salvation, there are two distinct stages: the redemption stage, and the fellowship stage (Eph 2:8-10). When Catholics fail to clearly discern those stages, and fail to keep them distinctly separate from each other, then they will find themselves seriously confused and in grave peril.

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, regardless of their degree of piety or depravity, from certain death in eternal suffering (Rom 5:6-11).

After they're safe and sound, and not one minute before, the rescued can go home, pick up the pieces of their life, and begin practicing good citizenship. That's the fellowship stage of salvation. That's where obedience is appropriate and counts for something.

But suppose the rescued neglect to practice good citizenship? Will the National Guard take them back to the treetops? No they won't; because 1) the rescue was gratis; and had nothing at all to do with good citizenship. It had everything to do with the preservation of human life, and 2) the rescued's predicament in the treetops had nothing to do with citizenship and everything to do with the forces of nature. People have no control over the forces of nature. No, they're not controllers: they're victims.

This principle of the "forces of nature" is the very reason why redemption is a gratuitous rescue rather than a contractual operation. No matter how much money you come up with, you cannot buy off the forces of nature; and no matter how good a goody two-shoes you are, forces of nature like an F5 tornado and/or a hurricane Katrina will still kill you just as dead as if you were a Ponzi schemer or a Mafioso hit man. Human nature is also a force of nature that people cannot control. It is taking them to Hell just as surely as tornadoes and hurricanes are destroying their homes and running them up trees which is why redemption is a rescue rather than a merit award.

But what happens when flood victims lack confidence in the harness to hold them securely? What if they lack confidence in the skills and abilities of the National Guard helicopter crew? What if they don't trust the pilot? What if they don't trust the rope? What if they don't trust the men operating the hoist? What if they're afraid of heights and airplanes? And worse yet, what if they attempt to swim for it on their own? See what I'm saying? Faith, as regards the redemption stage of salvation, means putting your life in the hands of a total stranger (1Pet 1:8-9).

Catholics are clinging to a treetop, and the name of that tree isn't oak, nor cedar, nor maple, no, it's name is Rome; which is a theocratic monarchy that cannot guarantee anybody a 100% fail-safe, God-proof, commandment-proof, human nature-proof, sin -proof, rescue from the wrath of God and full time protection from retribution— not even for its Popes nor even for an outstanding nun like Mother Teresa.

In John 3:14-18, Jesus relates his crucifixion to the necessity of the serpentary image that Moses constructed in Num 21:5-9.

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

The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story short; Yhvh's people became weary of living in the desert and eating manna all the time at every meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine benefactor for tastier food and better accommodations, they became hostile and confrontational.

In response to their insolence; Yhvh sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions. In no time at all, much people of Israel died. Then those not yet dead came to their senses and asked Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion an image of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying from venom could look to the image for relief.

Now the key issue here is that the image was the only God-given remedy for the people's bites— not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of obligation, not the Sabbath, not charity, not Bible study and Sunday school, not tithing, not one's religion of choice, not self denial, not the so-called golden rule, not vows of poverty, nor the Ten Commandments, nor door-to-door missionary work, no; not even prayers. The image was it. In other words then: Christ's crucifixion is the only God-given escape from the wrath of God; and the God-given default is death: especially for people who commit deliberate sins; which are behaviors that people know full well beforehand are prohibited.

Take lies for example. Everybody knows that God prohibits lies; yet people go on telling lies anyway. Those lies are what the laws of God define as unpardonable sins.

"And the priest shall atone for the erring soul which sinned inadvertently before the Lord, so as to atone on his behalf, and it shall be forgiven him. One law shall apply to anyone who sins inadvertently from the native born of the children of Israel and the proselyte who resides among them. But if a person should act highhandedly, whether he is a native born or a proselyte, he is blaspheming the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from among its people. For he has scorned the word of the Lord and violated His commandment; that soul shall be utterly cut off; for its iniquity is upon it." (Num 15:28-31)

"For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" (Heb 10:26)

Now; let's suppose somebody begins working out their own salvation as per Php 2:12 and tells only the whole truth and nothing but the truth for the rest of their life. Okay; that's nice; but what about all the unpardonable lies on their record that they accrued prior to working on becoming totally honest? What's to be done about those? Well; I'll tell you what's to be done. They're 100% fatal— just as fatal as the bite of those deadly snakes in Num 21:5-9.

Here's how to take advantage of the one God-given remedy for your own tree-top status.

Find a private spot— a restroom, out in the garage, in your bedroom —any place that works for you. Put your face in the palms of your hands and agree with God that you fully deserve to go to Hell. Then ask Him if you can take advantage of His son's crucifixion to ransom your soul from the wrath of God.

Some people may scoff at my recommendation as just another silly sinner's prayer. But I am not recommending that anybody pray until first accepting Jesus' application of the serpentary effigy that Moses constructed in Num 21:5-9; otherwise their prayer will result in a ping.

First off; it is essential to be fully convinced you are already condemned to Hell, no waiting period. Secondly; it is essential to be fully convinced Jesus' crucifixion will remedy your status just as effectively as the serpentary effigy remedied the Jews' dead-man-walking status. Do not pray if you don't meet those two conditions. And don't be afraid to pray about this. Jesus already testified that he will turn no one away (John 6:37-40).

There are parts of The Holy Bible that are very easy to understand if people would only let the Bible speak for itself while they listen to what it has to say instead of tuning it out and putting a spin on its words. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about.

§. John 19:26-27 . .Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

It is just amazing that anyone would construe that tender incident in Jesus' dying moments as a teaching that Joseph's wife was appointed the mother of all Christians. It only goes to show you just how seriously lacking in Spirit-filled intuition so many Catholics really are. Reading that passage sans scotoma (a self-induced psychological blindness caused by the mind's propensity to disregard concepts that are incongruous with deep seated, preconceived notions), it's very easy to understand what took place.

Jesus and his mother were both Jews born under the jurisdiction of Old Testament Judaism; a religion which obligates Jewish children to care for their parents. Jesus was leaving; and apparently Joseph was somehow out of the picture. So then, since Jesus was Mary's firstborn son, he became the default male head of the house in the absence of the paterfamilias. The Bible doesn't say why Mary had no one else to look out after her. But although the "disciple whom he loved" was selected to care for Jesus' mother in his absence, it is also glaringly apparent that the disciple whom Jesus loved was the only option. All the other disciples had already high-tailed it out of there: totally shunning Jesus like tuberculosis— including Peter; the alleged rock of the Roman Catholic church.

There are some Catholics who sincerely believe that Jesus appointed his mom to be the Mother of all Christians in that passage. However, those sincere Catholics are overlooking two important details in the narrative: the other three Marys— Mary the sister of Jesus' mom, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala (John 19:25). If Jesus had really intended Christians to interpret that passage as Mary's appointment to be the Mother of all Christians; then he would've spoken in the plural— "Children behold your mother" and; "Woman behold your son and your daughters."

Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that Jesus really did appoint his mom as the mother of all Christians. Then you have got to ask: Why isn't that concept developed in the book of Acts, nor in any of the epistles? I have yet to find even one sentence written by any of the post Gospel authors pointing to Jesus' mother as a caretaker of Jesus' sheep, nor as an example for the sheep to emulate— not one single verse! Yet the Catechism—CCC 966 and CCC 969 —exalts her to the position of Queen, Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix: a queen, advocate, helper, benefactress, and mediatrix who is not even one single time in the book of Acts, nor in any of the twenty-one epistles, mentioned as somebody special. Jesus' mom isn't even listed in 1Cor 15:3-8 as one of the people who saw him alive after his ordeal. She's barely given a passing mention in Acts 1:14; and that's it.

To say that Mary is the mother of all Christians is serious business because of the ramifications of such a statement. It would mean that every woman who preceded Mary, also deserves the title of Mother of all Christians; e.g. Adam's wife, Noah's wife, and Shem's wife; then Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary's own mom. All those mothers of Jesus have just as much genetic right to claim to be the mother of all Christians as Catholicism claims for Mary.

§. Gal 3:28-29 …And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

Since I believe myself to belong to Christ, then logic and conscience constrain me to accept that I am, in a Scriptural way, one of Abraham's descendents; ergo: in that case, if I were to actually have a valid "Christian" mother, it would be Sarah, the wife of Abraham, the mother of Isaac; rather than Joseph's wife Mary; the mother of Isaac's grandson.

OBJECTION : Why can't you understand that if you're Jesus' sibling by adoption; then Mary is automatically your mother?

The objector erred in assuming I was adopted into Mary's home. No, I was not. I was adopted into God's home, not Mary's. That's an extremely important distinction; and one that everyone should really give some serious thought.

§. Gal 4:4-7 . .But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His son into your hearts calling out; Dad! Father. Therefore, you are no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

§. Eph 1:4-5 ...For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as His kin through Jesus Christ

So then, Jesus' Father is my father too (John 20:17)— maybe not in the same intimate way that The Father is Jesus' father, but nevertheless, adopted children have all the rights and privileges of children born in the home; including a right to their adoptive father's unconditional love, a right to their adoptive father's name, a right to inheritance, a right to call their adoptive father by a filial name like daddy, and a right to their adoptive father's affections; viz: hugs and kisses, companionship, providence, and bed time stories. Additionally, an adopter can be held liable for child support in the event of divorce because the law makes no distinction between adopted children and biological children.

So you see, I am not waiting with crossed fingers to see if I qualify to become Almighty God's kin; no, according to Gal 4:4-7 and Eph 1:4-5, I'm already His kin; and already a beloved sibling to Christ in his Father's home.

Being Christ's adopted sibling, does not mean that believers are Mary's children just because Jesus was her son on earth. In point of fact, in Heaven, everybody shares the same Father; so that technically, Jesus and his own mother are now siblings; with Jesus being the senior ranking of the two.

§. Rom 8:29 …For God knew His people in advance, and He chose them to become like His son, so that His son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

(The title of firstborn can refer to either a rank in the family, or to a position in the birth line; and can be transferred to a younger sibling; e.g. Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Rueben and Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh.)

Christ is the only child in God's family who didn't get there by adoption. A number of times in the New Testament, The Son Of God is referred to as God's begotten son. A begotten son is a child actually born in the home; in contrast to children brought into the home; e.g. foster children, step children, and/or adopted children. Christ is also the only begotten son (John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, 1John 4:9). So then in God's biological family, Christ is an only child.

The New Testament Greek word for "only begotten" is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') and always means, without exception: only-born, i.e. sole child; (e.g. Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, and 1John 4:9)

Monogenes indicates that The Son is God's sole genetic heir; so that everybody else has to be adopted into The Father's home. Mary is now Christ's sister by adoption; so that Mary's earthly distinction, as Jesus' mom, is out the window because in Christ, she's a new creature in a new order (2Cor 5:17).

So then, if Mary was a true New Testament Christian, then she is my sibling in God's home via adoption because she wasn't born into God's home like The Son was. She was adopted into God's home just like every other true child of God (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:4-7, Eph 1:4-5). Thus; Mary is my sister; rather than my mother.

OBJECTION : We are all siblings in God's home by virtue of the fact that God is our creator; therefore, He is the Father of everybody.

That is a whopping misconception. God is everybody's creator, yes; but He is not everybody's parent. No, by default, Adam's posterity are human wildlife; viz: organic creatures. It's necessary to undergo a supernatural second birth to get in God's family. All other claimants are frauds, and have no right whatsoever to say God is their father.

§. John 1:12-13 …To all who accepted him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children not born of natural descent, nor of human decision, nor of a husband's passion, but born of God.

The supernatural second births about which Jesus spoke in John 3:3-8 are not optional; no, they are a "must"

§. John 3:3 . .I assure you; unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

§. John 3:6-7 . .Humans can reproduce only mortal human life, but that which is born of the Holy Spirit is spirit. So don't be surprised at my statement that you must be born again.

People who claim the universal fatherhood of God are implying that the Bible's God is like a deviant parent who sears its very own children's hands on a stove top or burns the skin on their backs with lit cigarettes. Nothing could be farther from reality. Nobody in the Bible's hell is related to God in any filial way at all. No, they're all strangers and outsiders; every one of them.

There's a couple of books of life. One records earth's births (Gen 5:1). And another records Heaven's (Rev 21:27). Everybody is in the first book; but only those who've undergone a supernatural second birth are in the second book.

§. Rev 21:1-7 . .And I saw a new cosmos and a new earth: for the first cosmos and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband . . Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

OBJECTION : Mary is the Mother of God, therefore she is the mother of all Christians because she is the spouse of the Holy Ghost.

It is extremely important to understand that the second births about which John wrote in John 1:12-13, and about which Jesus spoke in John 3:3-8, gives believers a Father; not a mother.

§. Rom 8:15 . .You have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out; Dad! Father.

§. Gal 4:6-7 . .And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His son into our hearts, calling out; Dad! Father.

Besides; according to God's decrees in the book of Genesis, marriage within Adam's family is a one-flesh relationship between two human beings; it is not a hybrid relationship between a human being and a spirit being.

§. Gen 2:22-24 . .And the rib, which Yhvh God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mary's alleged espousal to God's spirit is a proprietary Roman Catholic dogma that cannot be found in the Gospel records; nor is it developed in either the book of Acts nor any of the epistles. The dogma is not only unscriptural; but it also slanders God by insinuating that His spirit is an adulterer.

OBJECTION : Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, so she could not possibly have been an adulteress.

Under the jurisdiction of Moses' covenanted law, betrothed Jewish girls are legally a man's spouse even before they undergo a wedding ceremony; which is why The Lord referred to Mary as Joseph's wife prior to a rabbi's pronouncement.

§. Matt 1:18-20 . .After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph . . an angel of The Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying; Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife

§. Matt 1:16 . .And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

So then, if Mary was espoused to, and impregnated by, the Holy Ghost at the same time that she was Joseph's wife, then both the Holy Ghost and Mary were adulterers. And according to Moses' covenanted law, when someone mates with a betrothed girl they are both to be put to death.

§. Deut 22:23-24 . .If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Is God's spirit above God's law? I don't think so. That would be a shameful double standard.

§. Matt 7:2-5 . .For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother; "Let me take the speck out of your eye" and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

OBJECTION : The very fact that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, makes her the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

That is a proprietary Catholic teaching not found in the New Testament's inspired record. It reads something foreign into the inspired text, and construes it to mean what it obviously doesn't; and grossly violates the Holy Bible's one-flesh principle in marriage (Gen 2:22-24). A mortal being cannot be one flesh with a spirit being. That would be even more difficult than trying to hybridize an oak tree with an orangutan.

Yes, Jesus' mom conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) but she didn't conceive by the Holy Spirit. That's a distinctive difference. Sarah herself conceived Isaac by the power of God; an old woman past menopause. Isaac's birth was just as much a miracle as Jesus' but no one would ever say that Sarah and God actually mated; nor that they were espoused.

Another objector alleged that Joseph and his wife didn't consummate their marriage. Let me ask them to explain something: How would the Holy Ghost consummate a marriage to Joseph's wife? Can a non-material spirit being copulate with a material flesh and blood human being? And if it did, then what would it deposit in Mary's womb? A daub of non-material spirit semen? You see, to hybridize a spirit being with a mortal being is what is known in the Bible as confusion: it's an unnatural union; and all the same as bestiality: a human being mating with an animal.

Follow that reasoning to its obvious conclusion. If the Holy Ghost consummated a marriage with Mary, then The Father did too, and so did The Son: the entire Trinity would have slept with Jesus' mom; including her own son since he's a member of the Trinity too.

Rome's sick yarn about Mary and God's so-called mystical marriage has burdened a pretty fair amount of mockery and ridicule upon Christianity, and I will relish with delight Rome's utter and thorough humiliation at the throne of God when its proprietary yarns, fantasies, and myths are debunked and ignobly discarded in the lake of fire right along with the imaginative buffoons that invented them.

§. 2Cor 11:13-15 . .For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds.

OBJECTION : You are wrong in saying Mary was wed to all three persons of the Trinity. Mary's relationship with the three persons of the Godhead differ from each other. Mary's chief title is Mother Of God. But, when we say she is God's Mother, we are referring to her relationship with the second person of the Trinity; not to the first nor the third.

Since it was the Holy Ghost who sired Jesus, and since it was the Holy Ghost who allegedly married Jesus' mother, then why is Jesus never called the son of The Holy Ghost? Did you ever stop to think of that? You see, Jesus' being sired by the Holy Spirit automatically made him the Father's son because you can't break the Trinity down into three disconnected persons. So then, since the Son is God, then Jesus is the son of the Son as well as the son of the Holy Spirit; viz: God is his own father; and that's exactly how Jesus' Jewish opponents understood him.

§. John 10:33 . .The Jews answered him, saying; For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Rome has been making Jesus to be God for years, so Catholics shouldn't be antagonized by the logical conclusions of their own dogma.

When Jesus referred to a person he called "My Father" was he referring to the Holy Ghost who sired him; or to some other personage? Who is this person whom Jesus called My Father? Isn't it The Father; the first person of the Trinity? Yes, it is. So then, the first person of the Trinity, and the third person of the Trinity, are one and the same person because both are given credit for siring Jesus.

You see, it is impossible to fragment the Trinity and break it down into three separate divinities. It is only one divinity. The fact that Christ is God, and that Mary gave birth to him, is the very reason why Catholics believe her to be God's mother. Isn't that right? Yes, that's right. So then, applying the logic of their own reasoning: God is the son of the Holy Spirit, the son of The Son, and the son of Himself too.

So then, according to Rome's own proprietary beliefs, Mary was both the mother of God and the wife of God; ergo: Rome has inadvertently made Jesus' mom not only a bigamist, and an adulteress, but also an incestuous mother by bearing a child sired by her own son.

It's interesting that objector would label Jesus the savior rather than calling him my savior; indicating to me that they feel absolutely no kinship bond with him whatsoever; and in point of fact, by refusing to call him my savior, they are in effect denying any association with him.

§. Luke 12:8-10 …I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.

I would never slander the New Testament's Mary because she's my own beloved sibling in God's home, viz: Jesus' mom is my sister. However, I consider it essential to demonstrate that Roman Catholicism's version of Mary is a bigamist, an adulteress, and an incestuous mother because the ramifications of Roman Catholicism's very own Trinitarian dogma itself demands it.

OBJECTION : Joseph was Mary's husband by proxy, not in the normal way. He was merely assigned to take care of Mary, not to actually cohabit with her.

Webster's defines proxy as: 1) the agency, function, or office of a deputy who acts as a substitute for another, 2) authority or power to act for another, 3) a document giving such authority; specifically: a power of attorney authorizing a specified person to vote corporate stock, and 4) a person authorized to act for another: procurator.

What the objector's application of the word proxy suggests is that Joseph was never really Mary's husband at all, but that he went through the wedding ceremony as a duly authorized agent of the Holy Ghost with the power of attorney to speak for the Holy Ghost in order to wed the Holy Ghost to Mary. So that the wedding ceremony that Joseph participated in, wasn't his own, but was actually the official wedding of Mary and the Holy Ghost.

I would like to ask that objector something related to that particular time in Israel's history. Who would have performed such a ridiculous ceremony? A rabbi? I don't think so. No self-respecting Jewish rabbi in his right mind would wed a Jewish woman to Yhvh. Who then? A Catholic priest? There were no Catholic priests in Joseph's day. So then, what the objector suggested was a marriage ceremony that simply couldn't have taken place, and even if it had, the marriage would have been illegal anyway because Jewish law of that day would never have allowed it, nor would ever have permitted it to be registered.

To the absolute contrary; the New Testament clearly, and without ambiguity, testifies by inspiration of God, that Mary's husband was Joseph rather than the Holy Ghost.

§. Matt 1:18-25 . .Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

. . Then Joseph, her husband being an equitable man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of The Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will give birth to a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of The Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not sleep with her before she gave birth to her firstborn son.

Joseph "did as The Lord commanded him" and "took to him his wife". Would that objector seriously have me to believe that the record is wrong— to believe that Ste Joseph disobeyed what The Lord commanded, and refused to take to him Mary as his own wife?

The only passage in the entire New Testament that even so much as alludes to a wedding between Mary and God is found in Luke's narrative.

§. Luke 1:35 . .And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy one who is to be born will be called the Son of God."

The words "the Highest will overshadow you" have been construed by some Catholics to mean "God will be your husband." But a construction of that nature misses the thrust of the virgin birth. Gabriel merely said that God would substitute the part of a biological father with a special miracle; and that's why Mary's boy is called (in his own native tongue) ben 'elohiym, which in English means "son of God". It in no way implies Mary and God got married, nor does it imply Mary and God copulated. Jesus' conception was a miracle— an act of God —not an act of conjugal sex.

Mary's final word on the matter should tell you something about her own personal understanding of Gabriel's message. I'm going to deliberately misquote her in this next passage. Watch for the error.

§. Luke 1:38 . .Then Mary said, "Behold the wife of The Lord! Let it be to me according to your word."

Catch the error? No, she didn't say behold the wife of The Lord, she said behold the handmaid of The Lord.

Mary fully understood what was going to happen to her; but Catholicism has somehow missed it. The thrust of Gabriel's announcement was not a marriage between Mary and God, nor a conjugal act; but the fact that a human being was coming into the world via a special miracle.

OBJECTION : Had Mary really intended to consummate her marriage to Joseph, she would not have asked Gabriel how she was to conceive without a man (Luke 1:34).

The objector neglected to factor in the New Testament's inspired testimony that Joseph and his best girl were 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; 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.

And since Joseph was already engaged to Mary prior to his dream sequence, 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.

If you never get anything else out of the Gospel narratives, I hope you 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.

Since the Gospel narratives do not clearly, and without ambiguity, indicate otherwise, it has to be assumed, from the normal round of Jewish human experience, that those two Jewish adults fully intended to sleep together after their wedding.

That said, then the answer to the objection is a no-brainer. It's quite obvious from Mary's response in Luke 1:34 that she fully understood Gabriel to mean that her pregnancy was imminent, any second; prior to consummating the marriage to her fiancé. And that's exactly how it went down.

By the time Mary got back from visiting Elizabeth, she would have been in her second trimester. People in Nazareth (especially her mother) would begin to notice. Once Mary's parents discovered the shameful news, it became their sacred duty to notify the groom's family that his fiancée was carrying somebody else's baby; and that's very likely how Joseph found out his best girl was expecting even before he learned the identity of the baby's father in a dream.

OBJECTION : Joseph's marriage to Mary wasn't intended for the purpose of cohabitation. It was merely a protective measure to shield the identity of Jesus' real father.

The objection insinuates the commission of a crime. When Jesus' parents took him to the Temple for his 8th day circumcision, that's when the baby's birth went into the records; which would have included not only the name of the biological father, but also his tribal affiliation. If the objector were to be correct, then Joseph falsified Jesus' birth records; and from then on, the whole family would have lived a lie in Nazareth. I just don't think a man who attested himself as the truth (John 14:6) would ever asssist in perpetrating fraud.

Let me ask: Why would the identity of Jesus' real father need to be kept secret, and how did that objector even come up with that theory?

Remember the Magi? How they, guided by God, came to Jerusalem, the very center of Israel, and blew the lid off Jesus' birth? The Jewish religious leaders knew exactly where Jesus was to be born, but they left out a very important piece of information about the baby when they quoted Micah 5:2 to Herod. According to Micah, the new king's "going forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Thus, the Jewish religious leaders knew that Messiah would be divine. That being the case, if those Jewish religious leaders had only believed Micah, they would have broadcast the news that his prediction had come true, and the whole country of Israel would have stampeded on down to Bethlehem, bowing and scraping and giving the baby gifts. Jesus' identity a secret? Far, far from it. God ensured Jesus' divine identity was public right from the get-go.

Let me explain something that's very important. Joseph had to lawfully wed Mary— not to give the baby the Holy Ghost's name —to give the baby Joseph's name because Jesus needed a legal connection to Solomon's side of David's family. You see, David's throne transfers down from father to son and it can't do that on Mary's side because she wasn't Solomon's blood posterity, but rather his brother Nathan's. Since the line of royalty was already established through Solomon, it could not back up and go through another of David's sons. God specifically chose Solomon; there was just no way out of it.

§. 1Chrn 28:5 . .And of all my sons, (for Yhvh hath given me many sons) He hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Yhvh over Israel.

(The "kingdom of Yhvh" in the Old Testament is the very same as the kingdom of God in the New; so it's obvious that Messiah's kingdom is to be on earth, not up in Heaven. Since that's the case, then some people are simply going to have to revise their interpretation of John 18:36)

Matthew's genealogy puts Joseph and Jesus in Solomon's posterity; which is impossible by birth because Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father. So then, Jesus got in Solomon's genealogy by adoption to Joseph. I know that because Joseph was ordered to name the baby. In ancient Jewish culture, when a Jewish man took part in naming a baby, he officially accepted it as one of his own.

You know, I think the reason Catholics make so many really stupid errors in regards to the holy family is because they're all so poorly trained in Old Testament Judaism, Old Testament Christology, and Old Testament Jewish culture.

OBJECTION : John 18:36 has already been rightly "interpreted" from the Greek into English, and it plainly states that Jesus' kingdom is "not of this world".

The Greek word for "of" is ek (ek) which is a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds) viz: from and/or out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)

ek is the word used of the origin of John's baptism in Matt 21:25-27. John's baptism was in the world, but it wasn't of the world.

The "interpretation" about which I wrote is not the translation of one language into another, but rather, the explanation of a text.

When Jesus said his kingdom is "not of this world" he didn't mean it won't be on the earth; after all that would be totally contrary to the Old Testament's Messianic prophecies and predictions. The Greek word translated "world" is the very same one translated world in John 3:16.

§. John 3:16-18 . .God so cared for the world that He donated His one and only son, that whoever relies upon him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not dispatch His son into the world to condemn the world, but to rescue the world through him.

Jesus didn't give his life primarily to rescue the earth from the wrath of God; no, he gave it primarily as a ransom to rescue human beings (Rom 5:6-11). Although kosmos includes the entire universe; the word typically indicates the sphere of human life.

Jesus is simply saying that his authority and power will not be established by human means and methods; but rather; by Divine.

§. John 18:36 . .Jesus said; My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now, my kingdom is from another place.

That statement was one that Pilate could easily understand. If the man standing before him on trial for his life were a true revolutionary, Pilate would have a war on his hands. But as it is, Jesus' army consists not of human soldiers, but of angels (Matt 13:40-42, Matt 26:53, Rev 19:11-18)

§. 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.

David's throne, right from the get-go, has always been in Jerusalem; not up where God resides. Heaven is where God's throne is, David's throne is on earth.

§. Matt 23:37-39 . .O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look! your House is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say; Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

"your House" is the Temple; which will remain void of the presence of God all the while Jesus' fellow Jewish countrymen refuse to accept him as their king (cf. 1Sam 21:5)

§. Acts 1:10-11 . .They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. Men of Galilee; they said; why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.

§. Rev 1:7 . .Look! he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will wail because of him.

OBJECTION : Colossians 1:13 forces one to realize that Jesus' kingdom existed in the first century, and is not to be some yet future earthly kingdom, when it states: "Who [the Father of verse 12] hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:". Note the past tense of the verb "translated." This affirms the existence of God's kingdom at the time Paul wrote. Indeed, the Colossians had already been translated into it.

That objector is simply going to have to revise their explanation of that passage in order to bring it into conformity with the Old Testament's Messianic prophecies and predictions. Yes, it is possible to obtain citizenship in Messiah's kingdom right now, but it will not be fully up and running till the kingdom's monarch takes his place on David's throne and the angels purge his enemies. Until the world's estimated 1.5 billion Muslims are crushed, there can be no peace in the Prince of Peace's kingdom.

If Messiah were on-site, in person governing the country of Israel today, the whole world would be shivering in mortal panic; especially the Muslim world (cf. Zech 14:1-21, Ps 2).

OBJECTION : Surely you must understand that Almighty God loves the devotion, the veneration, & the honor that is paid to the Holy Virgin; His own sacred spouse.

I don't think Almighty God loves anything of the kind. To begin with, Jesus' mother has never been God's spouse: she is His daughter by adoption; same as every other genuine Christian (Rom 8:15-17, Gal 4:4-7, Eph 1:4-5). And secondly, it is a gross violation of Divine Law to offer religious veneration to any being— whether terrestrial or whether celestial —other than to The True God.

§. Mark 12:30 …You shall love The Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.

In order to fully obey Mark 12:30, Catholics are going to have to repent, give up their Marian devotion; and transfer their affections to The Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. If you give God your all, then there will be nothing left to give Jesus' mom; will there? No, because all means everything— the whole ball of wax —not just a portion of the wax.

Let me point out something very, very important about Mary's current status. Catholics seriously need to get their minds off the earthly order and get it focused on the heavenly order because the earthly order is passing away; while the heavenly order is permanent. Joseph's wife is no longer a member of the earthly order, but of the heavenly.

§. 2Cor 5:16-18 …Therefore from now on we acknowledge no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come.

The mother/son relationship that Jesus once had with his mom while on earth doesn't exist in heaven because their earthly relationship doesn't matter any more. Mary's status as the mother of Jesus was a status she held in her first existence. That existence is dead: gone forever.

§. Col 3:1-3 …If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Even if Mary were in truth a spouse of the Holy Ghost while she was on earth, she would no longer be its spouse now because that relationship would have occurred while she was on the earth. Now that Mary is dead and gone; she would no longer be God's wife; but rather, she'd have a new status as His adopted little girl; and you certainly wouldn't want your God married to one of His own daughters would you? That's incest.

I began my existence "in Adam" as an earthly human being. I will shed my entire Adamic existence when I die, and go into eternity not just renovated, but as a brand spanking new, whole other style of human being— as a heavenly human being; no longer in Adam, but in Christ; just like my sister Mary is right this very moment. Her status as Jesus' mom was as an Adam human being. She's no longer an Adam human being and neither is Jesus. When he came back from death, Jesus didn't return to his previous Adamic human existence; but rose as a new genera of human being altogether; which is why he's the first-fruits from the dead. Jesus is the first ever to be resurrected as a heavenly human being.

I know from the 15th chapter of 1Corinthians that there are two genera of human beings. One is of earthly origin— the Adam human being —and the other is of heavenly origin— the Christ human being. Jesus' and Mary's earthly lives are over and gone; totally shed when they died. They no longer have a mother/son relationship as heavenly human beings. Now they're siblings.

§. Rom 8:29-39 …For those whom God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many siblings.

OBJECTION : Mary is Jesus' mother in Acts 1:14 after her son rose from the dead and was already back in Heaven.

There are several women named Mary in the New Testament: James the less' mother, Lazarus' sister, Mary of Magdala, Mark's mother, Joseph's wife, and a Mary of Rome. In order to keep the record straight, it's necessary to distinguish all those Marys one from another by accompanying their names with an identifying remark. If the author of the book of Acts hadn't done that, then it would be impossible to know which of the six Marys was in the upper room of Acts 1:14. Compare John 19:25 where three Marys attended Christ's crucifixion; and Mark 16:1 where two Marys went out to the cemetery.

It is foolhardy to brush aside the sibling relationship that all Christians, including his own mother, now connect with to Christ. And people need to be made aware that if he is not their sibling, then Christ is nothing to them but their judge.

The revision better reflects Rome's ersatz Mary that Catholicism's management took upon themselves to vote into office as the Queen Of Heaven and the Mother Of All Christians. Theirs might be a good role model for old maids and lesbians but I much prefer the New Testament's version of Joseph's wife over their version. In my opinion, otherwise healthy mothers who never sleep with their otherwise healthy husbands, have got some serious problems in their marriages. The home life of two Jewish adults who never sleep with each other is NOT what I would call an example of a "good" Jewish marriage. It's an example of a sick Jewish marriage; and runs contrary to Apostolic directives.

§. 1Cor 7:2-9 …Because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

…The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband. Wives have a right to their husband's body, and husbands have a right to their wife's body. So do not deprive each other of sexual relations.

…The only exception to this rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time, so they can give themselves more completely to prayer. Afterward they should come together again so that Satan won't be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control.

…This is only my suggestion. It's not meant to be an absolute rule. I wish everyone could get along without marrying, just as I do. But we are not all the same. God gives some the gift of marriage, and to others he gives the gift of singleness. Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows— it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with desire.

It's of no use to claim that Joseph and Mary had the "gift of singleness" which would be an invention right out of thin air rather than a New Testament fact of record. They were engaged to be married before a Jesus baby even came into the picture; and I seriously doubt that a Jewish Mary planned to wed a Jewish Joseph so that they could remain childless the rest of their lives and never have a family of their own dedicated to the process of fulfilling the blessing of God's promise to Abraham:

§. 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 role models for young Christian women are experienced mothers with children of their own.

§. Titus 2:3-5 . .Teach the older women to live in a way that is appropriate for someone serving the Lord. They must not go around speaking evil of others and must not be heavy drinkers. Instead, they should teach others what is good. These older women must train the younger women to love their husbands and their children, to live wisely and be pure, to take care of their homes, to do good, and to be submissive to their husbands. Then they will not bring shame on the word of God.

OBJECTION : According to Ste. Paul, women serve The Lord better when they're celibate (1Cor 7:32-35).

What we're talking about here is not a choice between good and bad, but rather; between the options of good and better; since matrimony has never been a sin (Gen 2:19-24, 1Cor 7:36-38).

Paul's focus in 1Cor 7:32-35 isn't so much upon celibacy as upon distractions; and after raising a son of my own and putting him through college, I know from my own personal experience that being a man's wife and the mother of a young child, definitely put heavy demands upon Mary's time. So if Jesus' mom could still be of use to The Lord as a wife and mother in spite of the distractions of marriage and family, then why can't other women? Bottom line is: it all depends upon what you're cut out for.

If a woman is happier celibate, then celibacy is right for her. But if a women is happier with marriage and family, then celibacy is absolutely not right for her. And let me tell you something, if celibacy drives a woman to weeping and thoughts of suicide, then just how much real use is she to The Lord and to her fellow man in that condition? The Lord's followers are supposed to be content, not racked with depression and thoughts of suicide. Those negative characteristics are a very poor testimony to the value of practicing New Testament Christianity.

The most famous celibate women I can think of was Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (a.k.a. Mother Teresa of Calcutta). Was she a content woman? See for yourself. Here's her own personal testimony as recorded in her private letters published in "Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light" by Brian Kolodiejchuk, M.C. ISBN 978-0-385-52037-9.

In one of her letters, penned to a Father Picachy, Teresa complained; "I am told God loves me; and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."

Teresa's private letters paint an astonishing alternate portrait of the nun so revered the world over for selflessness and serenity. In reality, the woman was tormented for decades by her inability to feel even the smallest glimmer of The Lord's presence. Teresa felt abandoned by Christ, and referred to him as "the absent One" and said of her own supposed cheerfulness: "My smile is a great cloak that hides a multitude of pains." In another letter she said: "The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God; and that He does not really exist."

If Teresa's experience teaches anything at all, it teaches that celibacy is not the supreme end-all because it sure didn't work for her.

OBJECTION : It's worth remembering here that Jesus was a Jew from his Mother's side. Interestingly enough, Jews consider that the relevant criterion for being a Jew, is to be born to a Jewish mother.

I don't know how that ever became a tradition in Judaism because in the Old Testament, it is the fathers who determine tribal heritage, not the mothers; viz: a Jewish woman who has babies by a Gentile man, produces Gentile babies; not Jewish.

OBJECTION : How can you make such a blasphemous statement as to refer to the Son of God's sacred mother as a mere baby mill?!!

Women have been milling babies since the very beginning— it is their purpose in life; there's no shame in it.

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

§. Gen 3:20 . .And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. (cf. 1Tim 2:13-15)

As for being "selected" to bring God's son into the world; Mary had to meet an immutable prerequisite that had nothing at all to do with her personality: her own biological father had to be a genetic Hebrew male related to David by blood because Jesus absolutely had to be one of David's male posterity.

Catholicism has so mystified Jesus' 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 pregnancies, and the deliveries, and the boobs for breast feeding. Mary had all that, and I'm not even going to get into feminine hygiene and the ladies' room. I demand that Catholicism bring Jesus' mom back to reality: de-mystify Joseph's wife, and make her a human being again like she was to begin with.

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

A woman's egg is a seed. Eve had seed (Gen 3:15), and Hagar had seed (Gen 16:10). So that human seed (as regards gametes) is not only a male's sperm cell, but also a female's ovum.

Inspiration clearly, and without ambiguity, testifies that the New Testament's Jesus Christ sprouted from the tribe of Judah.

Since Joseph wasn't the immediate biological father, then the closest tribal-determining Jewish male was Mary's dad. Unless people somehow believe that Mary popped out of a rock, then they have to accept that she was the biological product of a normal union between a man and a woman. Since she was the biological product of a normal union between a man and a woman, then she carried the genes of both parents; so that it is technically incorrect to say that Christ had no biological fathers because in biblical fact, he did. Jesus had a slew of biological fathers all the way back to David, Abraham, Noah, and Adam.

OBJECTION : Mary was a kinswoman (or cousin) of Elizabeth who was a daughter of Aaron; not of David. That makes Mary a Levitical woman instead of a woman of the tribe of Judah.

Aaron was a Levite (Ex 6:16-20). Both Judah and Levi were Leah's sons (Gen 35:23) so Elizabeth and Mary are related to each other via their grandmother Leah.

OBJECTION : But since Mary was a female, she couldn't possibly carry and transmit David's "seed" (the male sperm).

People in those days knew nothing of genetics and DNA. The word "seed" had to suffice for all of that. Mary most certainly did transmit David's seed because Jesus is clearly, and without ambiguity, reported to be David's genetic posterity.

§. Rom 1:3 . .Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

The Greek word for David's seed is sperma (sper'-mah) from whence Webster's derived the word "sperm" and defines it as: the male fecundating fluid: semen

§. Gal 3:16 . . Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, "and to thy seed" which is Christ.

People have been trying for years, with no success, to prove that Mary was a surrogate mother. And thank God they can't because it is essential that Christ be biologically descended from David in order to legitimately inherit his throne.

OBJECTION : Then Joseph had to be the biological father because of the "seed" of David according to the flesh.

I think that objector is way too hung up on male spermatozoa when they should be thinking of human genetics instead. The Bible's authors couldn't be specific with things like genetics because they weren't as educated as modern people. When they used a word like "seed" it covered a whole lot of territory; e.g. Jesus is said to have been born of not just David's sperma (Rom 1:3) but also of God's.

§. 1John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His [sperma] remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

According to the objector's thinking, God must have had sex with Mary in order to impregnate her with His own male sperm cells. But since God is a spirit being, and Mary is a mortal being, I seriously doubt God's male sperm cells (if indeed He has any) would work because it would be a mating of two entirely different kinds of life. It would be even more difficult than trying to cross rhubarb with an Orangutan.

That objector is simply going to have to revise the way they think about the Bible's use of the word seed. Although Jesus wasn't conceived by the direct application of male sperm cells, he was nevertheless conceived via the ovum of a woman who's biological father was a blood descendant of David. So that genetically, Jesus was indeed David's seed.

So then, if God was able to fashion a fully functioning human being from the non human dust of the ground, and to fashion another of opposite sex from the organic tissues of a human already in existence; then I'm inclined to think it shouldn't be too difficult for Him to fashion a fully functioning human being from an already-existing human ovum. And since Mary was the product of a normal union between a man and a women, then she carried her dad's genes in her ovum— genes which her dad himself inherited from David. So God had lots of royal DNA to work with in bringing the most famous of David's grandsons into the world.

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

Hail Messiah Jesus ben David!
Almighty God has always been with you.
Blessed are you above every living creature (including your mother).
Blessed are all they who put their trust in you (rather than in your mother).
Blessed are they who look forward to your return.
Holy Messiah Jesus, my sacred sibling; welcome me home at the hour of my death.
I look forward to meeting you in person;
as I look forward to your enemies crushed to death
in the winepress of the wrath of God.
Amen.

One of the lines in Lovely Lady Dressed In Blue is a line that says; "Lovely Lady dressed in blue- Teach me how to pray!" That is so insulting. Jesus is supposed to be the believer's prayer coach; not his mom.

§. Luke 11:1-2 . .Once when Jesus had been out praying, one of his disciples came to him as he finished and said, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples." He said, "This is how you should pray: Father [not Mother], may your name [not Mary's name] be honored."

§. Eph 6:18 . .And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.

§. Jude 1:20 . .But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.

I can easily guarantee that when believers comply with that mandate, and pray in The Sprit, they will not pray to a mother, no, they will pray to a father.

It is easily seen from those passages that when Catholics pray to Jesus' mom, rather than praying to his Father, they are doing so out of failure to pray in The Spirit, and also because they lack The Spirit's assurance that they are God's children rather than Mary's.

At the epicenter of New Testament Christianity is a male human being named Jesus Christ. But at the epicenter of Catholic Christianity is the woman who gave birth to Jesus. It's just a shame that the Christ of New Testament Christianity has to compete with his own mother for the loyalties and affections of people professing themselves to be his faithful followers.

I am 100% convinced that the Bible's God appreciates no such thing; and would never contradict either His own son's testimony, nor the inspired words of New Testament scripture.

§. Mark 12:30 …And you shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.

§. Matt 2:11 ...And when the Magi were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped [not his mother] him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto [not his mother] him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

§. John 12:32 …And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto [not my mother] me.

§. Matt 17:5 ...While Peter was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. You listen [not to his mother] to him!"

§. Matt 28:18 ...Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given [not to my mother] to me."

§. 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 [not his mother] him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

§. Php 2:8-11 …And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted [not his mother] him, and given [not his mother] him a name which is above every name (every name includes his mother's name): that at the name of Jesus every knee (every knee includes his mother's knees) should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue (every tongue includes his mother's tongue) should confess that Jesus Christ [not his mother] is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

§. Col 1:18-19 …And he [not his mother] is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he [not his mother] might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him [not his mother] should all fulness dwell;

Catholic Christianity's shameful infatuation with Joseph's wife makes me angry with jealousy over my savior's best interests.

OBJECTION : We do not look out for God's best Interests. It is God who looks out for our best interests.

§. Matt 4:8-11 …the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to him; "All these things I will give you, if you get down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written you shall worship The Lord your God, and serve Him only.

The Greek word for serve in that passage is latreuo (lat-ryoo'-o) which is derived from latris (a hired menial). Latreuo means: to minister; which can be defined as: to give aid or service; viz: to attend to the wants and/or comforts of someone; also: to pay homage. Webster's defines homage as the relationship between a feudal lord and his vassal.

According to that incident in Jesus' life, true Bible worship is more than just veneration, but also includes the component of service. I have no clue how someone could possibly serve God faithfully while indifferent to His best interests. Worship unaccompanied by service is just lip service; which Webster's defines as: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or allegiance expressed in words but not supported by deeds.

§. Php 2:1-4 ...Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

If you are not looking out for my savior's best interests; then you don't love him; and you are neither his servant, nor his follower.

§. Matt 25:28-30 …Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

There is a pretty good number of Christians who sincerely believe Christ was a sinless man because he didn't have a human biological father— their logic being that the so-called fallen nature is passed on only by men. But if we go back to the very beginning, we can easily debunk their theory.

To begin with: Eve wasn't created from dust as had been Adam. She was manufactured with already-existing human tissue amputated from Adam's body.

§. Gen 2:21-22 . .The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man.

§. Gen 5:2 . . Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

§. Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman; and between your seed and her seed— he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.

It's generally agreed upon by the entire Christian community, regardless of denominational affiliation, that the woman's seed is Christ— this has important ramifications. For one: since Eve was just as much Adam as Adam, then her seed is just as much Adam too; hence Christ inherited the curse of death brought upon by the forbidden fruit incident. Were that not true, it would have been impossible to put Christ to death on the cross.

§. Gen 2:16-17 . .The Lord God commanded the man, saying: From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.

§. Gen 3:6 . .When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

§. Gen 3:17-19 . .To Adam he said: Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, "You must not eat of it" cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

Being manufactured with human tissue amputated from Adam's side, Eve was, in effect, Adam's first child. So then, death passed upon her also; and consequently upon her seed too.

§. Rom 5:12 . .Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

"all sinned" is in the grammatical past tense indicating that the forbidden fruit incident not only robbed Christ of immortality; but it also made a sinner out of him just as effectively as it made a sinner out of Eve; and subsequently the Lord's mother.

The punishment for tasting the forbidden fruit is limited to one's earthly demise; so nobody is danger of going to hell for it; viz: when the woman's seed died on the cross, justice was satisfied and the fruit was expunged from his record— and since he never committed any sins of his own to answer for; Jesus is no danger of the second death depicted at Rev 20:10-15.

OBJECTION : What you imply is not only preposterous but utterly blasphemous too! You are saying that not only was the Lord's mother a sinner, but him too?!

The condition isn't intrinsic; it's merely a legality. In other words: complicity in the forbidden-fruit incident isn't actual; it's imputed. Every one of Adam's progeny— which quite naturally includes Eve and her seed —is credited with tasting the forbidden fruit in real time even though they weren't there in person to do it for themselves. This is not as big a deal as some people make out it. It's just the reason why we all have to die— not the reason why so many of us are destined for eternal suffering. People undergo death the first time for one of Adam's indiscretions; but they undergo the second death depicted at Rev 20:10-15 for their own.

OBJECTION : Nonsense! There is just no possible way that one of Adam's progeny could live a 110% sinless life from birth to death and never commit even one sin of their own in either thought, word, or deed unless he was born of a sinless woman.

That objection overlooks one of the biggest elephants in the middle of the room I can possibly imagine; and that is: Christ was born not only of Adam; but also of God (Gen 3:15, Luke 1:26-35). That gave him a really big advantage right out of the box.

§. 1John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Since God is the one who manufactured human nature, then He is easily able to overpower it; which He did in Jesus; and here's how.

In other words: Jesus wasn't just filled with God's Spirit, he was maxed out with God's Spirit— all of God's Spirit: not just a percentage of God's Spirit.

Not even the Devil himself would be able to commit a sin while maxed out with all the fullness of God.

I've had atheists complain that Jesus had an unfair advantage over the rest of us; but they usually calm down when I tell them that Christ was destined to be the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world— not just some of the world, but the whole world from Adam to the final child born on earth. It wouldn't have been prudent of God to leave it up to a man born of Adam to make it to the cross on his own. Sooner or later, left to himself, Jesus would have tripped up and committed a sin somewhere along the line and thus blown the plan of salvation to smithereens. No, too much was riding on Jesus. No way could he be left to himself on such an important mission. God micro-managed Christ every step of the way from birth to death. He was truly a possessed man in every sense of the word— in a good way of course.

"Just as we do not deny these things which are written, so do we repudiate things that are not written" - - Ste. Jerome

According to Ste Jerome, Catholics should not accept that Jesus' mom was born via an immaculate conception on the grounds that it cannot be found written in the Holy Bible that her ordinary Jewish mother and father produced a sinless little baby girl. But stop and think for a moment. If an ordinary woman could produce a sinless little baby girl, then why couldn't an ordinary woman produce a sinless little baby boy? One is certainly no more difficult than the other.

OBJECTION : Jesus' mom was sinless since the Holy Bible says she was "full" of grace (Luke 1:26-30).

The Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity are both in error because the New Testament's Greek of Luke 1:26-30 doesn't contain the words "full of grace." The current official Catholic Bible renders Luke's testimony like this:

§. Luke 1:26-30 . .In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

Rome duped Catholics for years with its erroneous version of Luke 1:26-30, and even incorporated the error into a rote prayer well known to penance and rosary chanters as the Hail Mary, a.k.a. Ave Maria.

I have never seen any Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity, state that Jesus' mom was full of grace. I have however seen one that says Jesus was (e.g. John 1:14).

I have never seen any Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity, state that Jesus' mom was sinless. I have, however, seen Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity, state that God's son was sinless (e.g. 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 1:18-19, 1Pet 2:22, and 1John 3:5).

Bouncing off of it's own Church-made construction of Luke 1:26-30— enhanced by a similar Church-made construction of Luke 1:42 —Rome announced that the soul of Jesus' mom was miraculously created in an immaculate, sinless state of being, and legislated the Immaculate Conception an official dogma Dec 8, 1854. That's about 1,700 years after the apostles, which is very recent— a mere 154 years ago, about the time when gold was discovered in California and America's continental railroad was completed.

The Dec 8, 1854 dogma has absolutely no basis in fact. In reality, there are no Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity state that Miriam's conception was a miracle. On the other hand, in reality, there are Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity state that the conception of God's son was a miracle (e.g. Matt 1:18-24, Luke 1:26-35)

OBJECTION : The immaculate conception was believed in The Church much earlier than its becoming an official dogma; e.g. Franciscan John Duns Scotus (c. 1264-1308), introduced the idea of pre-redemption in order to reconcile Mary's freedom from original sin in her conception before the coming of Christ.

That's precisely my point. The so-called Immaculate Conception is an introduced idea; conceived in the minds of presumptuous clergy; rather than a clear-cut Biblical revelation. But still, even John Duns Scotus' idea came along more than a thousand years after the fact; which would make his idea retroactive rather than proactive. You can't just arbitrarily legislate retroactive revelation in order to lend credibility to somebody's ideas. That's tantamount to creating your own revelation rather than accepting God's.

And anyway; it should go without saying that a concept's antiquity is not an eo ipso guarantee of its reliability. Untruths were being propagated by professing Christians even while the apostles were still here (e.g. Gal 1:6-9, Jud 1:3-4, 2Pet 3:15-16, 1John 2:18-19). If Rome's clergy considers itself the keeper of the keys to the kingdom, then it has a serious responsibility to be honest, and a responsibility to keep the truth pure and uncontaminated from the injection of man-made fantasies somebody contrived in an effort to reconcile things they don't understand.

Paul admonished his fellow believers at Thessalonica to "hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2Thss 2:15). A tradition legislated into dogma 1,700 years after the apostles certainly does not qualify as a tradition "from us".

OBJECTION : It is absolutely unthinkable that the Son Of God— the second person of the Holy Trinity —would ever allow himself to be born of an ordinary woman!

A statement like that reads sexism, personal biases, and human sensibilities into holy writ instead of just letting holy writ speak for itself while listening to what it has to say; and does in fact mirror a snob's attitude towards women of lesser estate.

§. Luke 7:37-39 …And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

. . Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

The snobby Pharisee thought that the woman wasn't good enough to be on touchy-feely terms with a prophet, but boy was he ever wrong about that! (cf. John 4:5-9)

It was absolutely essential that Jesus be born a fellow man. Not just a man, but a fellow man. Take away a normal mother, and Jesus would not be a fellow man; no, he would be an alien.

§. Heb 2:16-17 …For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the genetics of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be sympathetic

Take way Jesus' normal mother and he might be empathetic, but he could never be sympathetic. You have to be fully human in order to be sympathetic with another fully human being.

Mary's own human DNA was laced with the genes of prominent immoral females in Jesus' blood line: Tamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba; to name just three without even mentioning the immoral males like Judah and David. And Peres himself was a baby of adultery since Tamar was betrothed to Shelah when she slept with Judah. Ergo: Mary's female body was genetically impure from those six people; so that even if she herself had actually been born sinless, the flesh and blood of her female plumbing was not. Her flesh and blood was the genetic product of at least five immoral human beings in her family's pedigree; and a sixth born of adultery. So then, in reality, the baby Jesus passed through the birth canal, and the labia and the pubic hairs, of tainted female flesh.

OBJECTION : How can you possibly think it's proper for an ordinary woman to carry the very Word himself in her body?

Messiah's journey into the world began with Adam, Noah, and Abraham; who, although themselves being Gentiles, eventually engendered Isaac and subsequently Jacob and the twelve tribal heads of the people of Israel. It was through Judah's tribe that Messiah was predicted to be engendered.

§. Gen 49:8-10 . .The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

§. Mic 5:2 . .But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

§. Luke 1:26-27 . .In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin descended from David, pledged to be married to a man named Joseph. The virgin's name was Miriam.

Catholicism would love nothing better than to stop Jesus' family tree right there with his mother and thus rob him of his biological tribal heritage. Rome makes the New Testament's Jesus a bastard being who is nowhere near being a real man; but rather, some sort of hybrid creature; an unnatural cross between a spirit being and a human being— a divine man rather than a real man.

Since it is the biological fathers who determine tribal heritage in the Bible, rather than the mothers, then Rome's Jesus would be of the tribe of God, but not of the tribe of Judah since their dogma on the so-called immaculate conception, effectively leaves Mary's biological father out of the gene pool.

The law of redemption began in the Old Testament, and can be seen played out to perfection in the book of Ruth. First and foremost, redeemers have to be kin to the person in need of redemption. That stipulation cannot be waived. So then, if Jesus' mom's soul had been a special creation in order to make her a perfect human being, then she herself would fail to qualify as kin to Abraham— she would in fact have been an alien brushing aside the boundaries of human definition.

§. Heb 2:16-17 . .For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the genetics of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a sympathetic and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

(a "faithful" high priest is one who's intuitively considerate of his fellow man's weaknesses)

Mary wasn't chosen out of all the women in the world. No, the woman for the job, first and foremost, had to be a biological Jew. Secondly, the Jewish woman had to be a biological descendant of Jacob's son Judah, and specifically biologically related to King David because her male child was destined to inherit its grandfather's throne (Luke 1:32-33).

If God had somehow genetically engineered Mary's genes in order to remove all the sinful ones so that her own body would be born immaculate, then Jesus would not have been born biological kin to King David. He would have been born biological kin to no one but his immediate mother; and neither one of them would have been true members of either Adam's, or Abraham's, or Judah's posterity. They would have both been bastard beings: members of a genetically engineered human race.

OBJECTION : Like it or not, Jesus had no earthly father and that's why he was not subject to the ramifications of original sin.

It's a common error that Jesus had "no" earthly father when in fact he had a slew of earthly fathers beginning with his mother's dad and extending all the way back to David, Judah, Jacob, Abraham, Seth, and Adam. All of those men's genes existed in Mary's ovum and subsequently in Jesus' DNA so that he truly was David's genetic descendant.

According to Rom 5:12-14; everyone descending from grandpa Adam, comes into the world pre-condemned for their imputed complicity in eating the forbidden fruit. (Don't ask me how that's fair. I'm just pointing out some hard realities for now.)

According to Luke 3:23-38, Jesus' mom descended from Adam. Since Jesus is her biological offspring, then he too is related to Adam by blood and subsequently inherited the condemnation of Adam's sin right along with his mother and everybody else in her blood line, including, but not limited to, David, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, and Seth.

This presents an interesting dilemma for fundamentalists; but the difficulty is easily resolved; and most of them never see the solution because its right under their nose.

If you read the fine print in Rom 5:12-14 you'll readily discover that the penalty for eating the forbidden fruit is not eternal suffering in Hell; but rather, just simple physical death of one's human body (cf. Gen 3:19) which applies to fetuses as well as to infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults. All are subject to physical death regardless of age, gender, and/or the quality of their personal righteousness.

So then, regardless of Jesus' perfectly sinless record; he too would have died of natural causes had he lived long enough. The proof of that is the cross. Had Christ been immortal, they couldn't have killed him. But he wasn't immortal, no, the New Testament's Jesus, in the days of his flesh, was very mortal. He not only could die, but he also needed food, water, and rest.

Jesus' own physical death, regardless of its cause, was sufficient to satisfy justice for himself in regards to the universal condemnation of Adam's trespass. However, had Jesus committed sins of his own like the rest of us do in our lifetimes, he would have been up a creek because he had only but one body to give, and that one body was already ear-marked for Adam's trespass; which is why the rest of us are in such grave danger of the wrath of God. The longer we live, the more sins we add to our record for which we must receive retribution. Your body is already ear-marked to satisfy justice for Adams' sin, but you have absolutely nothing with which to satisfy justice for additional sins that you yourself commit on your own.

This is primarily the reason why Jesus testified that people who fail to take advantage of his crucifixion as a ransom to rescue their souls from the wrath of God— in compliance with John 3:14-18 as it relates to Num 21:4-9 —are already condemned to eternal death, no exceptions and no waiting period.

The denial of any, and all, involvement of earthly fathers in Jesus' conception is directly related to not only the ramifications of Original Sin, but also to a special curse placed upon one of David's royal posterity.

§. Jer 22:29-30 . .O land, land, land, hear the word of Yhvh! Thus testified Yhvh: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be found acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the throne of David and to rule again in Judah.

By taking Jeconiah's line out of the genetic mix, proponents of immaculate conception hope to leave Jesus free of the curse. But the effort is futile.

Problem is; that when kids are adopted, they gain the very same legal status as children born in the home; viz: they not only gain the right to their father's name, and a right to inherit, but they also inherit their father's liabilities; viz: Jesus would have inherited Jeconiah's curse from Joseph just as legally as any of his natural-born sons.

OBJECTION : You are failing to appreciate that God is not governed by human agencies like adoption law.

A remark like that one has no basis in Bible fact whatsoever, but is just a shoot-from-the-lip retort.

That objector is certainly going to have problems with Jesus' inheritance rights to Solomon's throne if they continue on that path. Jesus got his genetic connection to David through his mother's biological father Heli, and he got his legal connection to Solomon through Joseph. True, Jesus is blood related to both David and Solomon, but though he is David's grandson, he is not Solomon's; no, Solomon is Jesus' granduncle; Solomon's brother Nathan is Jesus' grandfather, and he is not in the royal line.

The divine right to sit upon David's throne transfers only through the men, never through the women. So if you take away Jesus' inheritance rights to Jeconiah's curse, then you must of necessity take away his inheritance rights to Solomon's throne too because Jesus did not get those rights via natural succession. However, this really isn't the dilemma people seem to think it is.

It's a widely held belief that the curse on Jeconiah is far reaching and would have effected Jesus' tenure on David's throne had he not been virgin born. At first glance it does appear that way. But the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse was relatively brief, not extending beyond the period of the divided kingdom.

Thus, the curse on Jeconiah's male progeny was limited to the time of his family's jurisdiction in Judah. So it was in effect only during the days of the divided kingdom with Judah in the south and Samaria in the north. That condition came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery. However, when Messiah reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate all of Eretz Israel. So the curse doesn't apply to him.

§. Ez 37:21-22 . . and you shall declare to them: Thus testified Yhvh God: I am going to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them a single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one king shall be king of them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms.

In addition there's Jacob's precedent to consider; which is on display at Gen 48:5-6. Long story short: Jacob adopted two of his own grandsons; thus elevating them to a status equal to that of his twelve original sons and made them tribal heads. The adoption of his own grandsons not only had the effect of making them tribal patriarchs, but also had the effect of adding additional children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid Bilhah— Dan, and Naphtali. So Jacob's true motive for adopting the grandsons was in sympathy for his ex wife in being cut off during her child bearing years, which subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own. Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six— two of her own, two of her maid Bilhah, and two of Josephs'.

So you can see that the legalities of adoption play a major role in the Bible; for example:

Moses was adopted by a Pharaoh's daughter and given an Egyptian name. He kept it. (Ex 2:10)

There is even a posthumous adoption process where a deceased man's nearest eligible male relative is obligated to marry the widow. Their first son is reckoned the dead man's in order to keep his name alive in Israel and to prevent his property from being lost to outsiders. (Deut 25:5-10)

Christian believers undergo an adoption process in order to obtain the status of children in God's home, and to also give them an inheritance right along with His own son (Rom 8:15-17, Gal 4:4-6, Eph 1:2-11).

§. Rom 8:29-39 . .For those whom God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His son, that he might be the firstborn among many siblings.

OBJECTION : Jesus isn't a product of two earthly parents. Therefore He doesn't fall into the human procreation process.

It is just beyond belief that anyone could be so ignorant of Jesus' genealogy in the gospel of Luke. Jesus had dozens of earthly parents beginning with Mary's mom and dad, and stretching back to David and Bathsheba, Judah and Tamar, Jacob and Leah, Isaac and Rebecca, Abraham and Sarah, and Adam and Eve. All those parents' genes were present in Mary's ovum and had a role in Jesus' conception.

Who were Eve's earthly parents? She had but one; her husband. Eve's creation was even more difficult than Jesus' conception because there were no women in Adam's genealogy to provide female genes for God to work with in creating Eve. Jesus, to the contrary, wasn't created; no, he was conceived, and his conception was a much simpler miracle than creating Eve because a gene pool consisting of dozens of men were in Mary's ovum for God to work with whereas in Adam's organic tissues, there were no female genes.

"Just as we do not deny these things which are written, so do we repudiate things that are not written. That God was born of a Virgin we believe, because we read it. That Mary was married after His birth we do not believe because we do not read it." - Ste. Jerome -

That Jerome was a great scholar there can be no doubt. But as to his common sense; there is a serious question. Quite a few professing Christians are similar to Jerome in that they know the Bible, but they seem quite unable to reason from the Bible.

It is very easy to know that Joseph and his wife remained married after Jesus' birth simply by applying Jerome's own statement. There exists a clearly written Divine mandate effecting their union in Matt 1:18-24 —a mandate which apparently some suggest Joseph disobeyed; though the record clearly says he did obey.

§. Matt 1:24 . .Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of The Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife

Since there exists no clearly written record of either their divorce or of Joseph's death; then Bible students have no choice but to conclude that the holy couple remained married; especially in light of Joseph's clearly written relationship to Jesus before, and after, he was born (else why do people call them the holy family if Jesus and his parents weren't a couple?).

In ancient Jewish culture, men had to be parents in order to take part in naming a son (e.g. Lke 1:57-63). God would never have mandated Joseph to take part in naming somebody's baby if Joseph didn't honestly intend to go through with an already-existing engagement and marry its mother. That would be ridiculous.

According to the clearly written Biblical record, God mandated both Joseph and Mary to name Jesus.

§. Lke 1:31 . .And, behold, thou [Mary] shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

§. Lke 2:21 . .And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Mary herself clearly identified Joseph as Jesus' father, rather than his uncle or as some other non-conjugal relative, care-giver, or legal guardian.

§. Lke 2:46-48 . .And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Joseph wasn't just Jesus' father in name only— like some sort of godfather, or big brother, or honorary post —he was Jesus' father by law, because a legal adoption was the only way Jesus could have gotten in his uncle Solomon's genealogy; which is the line to David's throne (Matt 1:6-16). That bit of legality was a *must because Mary herself didn't genetically descend from Solomon, but rather, from Solomon's brother Nathan (Lke 3:31).

See how easy that was? Anybody could have done the same, except that for some strange reason, people of high intellect like Jerome have trouble.

§. 1Cor 1:26-27 . .Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world's eyes . . when God called you. Instead, God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise.

Catholic Mentality: Mary supplied all of the genetic matter for Jesus' human body since it was through her— not Joseph —that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3). So then, if Jesus is God, and Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God.

The ramifications of that statement— if true —are earth-shattering for Catholics.

Yes, it was Mary's ovum that provided all the genetic matter for Jesus' human body. So then, it is essential to emphasize that her ovum, as well as her child, descended from David according to the flesh. That means David's genes, and all of the genes of his male posterity leading up to Jesus, were in the DNA of Mary's ovum right along with her biological father's genes.

Jesus' mother didn't just pop up out of a rock; no, she was the natural human child of a normal human relationship between a man and a woman, and having her biological father's genes in her system, she would quite naturally transfer those genes to her baby whether the baby was virgin-born or not.

Catholics must cope with the genetic reality that, according to their faulty logic, every last one of the males in Mary's line were the fathers of God since there's nothing in the inspired record testifying that Mary was virgin born; and even if she were, her ova would still carry the genes of the males on her mother's side. But since the inspired record doesn't report otherwise, it has to be concluded prima facie, and eo ipso, that Jesus' mom herself wasn't virgin born, nor popped out of a rock, nor was a special creation; but was produced normally; by her own mother sleeping with a man, and by her mother's mother sleeping with a man, all the way back to the men of Bathsheba, Ruth, Rahab, Tamar, Leah, Rebecca, Sarah, Noah's wife, and Eve; et al.

Since Jesus' genetic code goes all the way back to Adam, then by the logic of Catholic genetics, Adam is God's father; which implies that God was created by God.

§. Gen 5:1-2 . .This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Easter week commemorates the most important event in the history of mankind— Jesus' resurrection.

If Jesus hadn't revived, absolutely nobody would have the slightest chance of escaping the wrath of God. Why? Because the Bible says that Jesus was raised again for our justification (Rom 4:25).

The New Testament Greek word for *justification is: dikaiosis (dik-ah'-yo-sis) which means: acquittal. Webster's defines *acquittal as: a setting free from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process.

So then, although Jesus was "delivered for our offenses" (Rom 4:25), his crucifixion alone wasn't quite adequate to fully liberate sinners from their due retribution. It was only after he was raised from the dead that sinners could be guaranteed full and complete immunity from the wrath of God.

§. 1Cor 15:17 …And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

Jesus' resurrection makes it possible for all human beings everywhere to escape the wrath of God; because via the combined effects of his crucifixion and resurrection, it is now possible for even the most heinous of sinners to obtain a full, and complete acquittal.

But did his mom believe he would be back from the dead? I don't think so. Search the list of names of the women who went out to Jesus' gravesite on Easter morning, and you will not find her mentioned among them. None of Jesus' original disciples believed he was going to recover from crucifixion, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Jesus' mom didn't believe either. It's not like she committed some kind of heinous atrocity or gross sin. Her doubt was simply status quo among Jesus' followers.

There's really very few plausible Bible reasons why Jesus' mom wasn't out in the cemetery waiting to greet her son Easter morning.

In regards to #1; because normal mothers are so bonded to their own flesh and blood, this reason seems to us the most likely.

In regards to #2; the physical mess Jesus was in after his ordeal makes this a likely possibility; but no excuse.

In regards to #3; that actually happened to a number of the disciples— but would a normal mother forget something like that?

In regards to #4; it's highly unlikely Jesus would confide such an important matter with his disciples and not his own mom— the alleged Queen Of Heaven and the Mother Of All Christians?

In regards to #5; there's nothing in the Gospel narratives suggesting Jesus' mom was indisposed.

In regards to #6; it's highly unlikely Jesus' mom would leave Jerusalem if she knew her boy was going to recover from crucifixion. Any truly loving mother would want to be on hand when her boy was restored to life and his injuries healed. Surely that would be just as much cause for a joyous reunion as a son coming home alive and well from the war in Iraq.

I don't know if you have any children of your own, but I can tell you from 28+ years of parental experience with a very sensitive woman, that if my son were to be killed, and his mother expected him back in three days; she would have been camped out in that cemetery all three of those days waiting for him; and threats to cut her throat wouldn't persuade her otherwise. Any normal mother would have been out there in that cemetery even if there was only a remote chance their boy might recover. I know, because I've seen that kind of mother's love right here in my own home.

If Jesus' mom truly believed her boy would recover, and truly expected him to; then if she was even half the mother my wife is; she would have been out there at the very least on the third day waiting for him with food and fresh clothing; but alas, she wasn't.

If Jesus' mom had truly believed he would revive, then don't you think the cemetery would be a reasonable place to find him? In point of fact, Jesus was still in the cemetery during the early hours of resurrection morning: right there at the grave site (John 20:10-18).

But aside from that; the angel's question should be taken like this: Why do you seek a dead Jesus? You see, the women of Luke 24:1-8 had somehow totally forgotten his promise to recover.

§. Luke 24:6-8 . .Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee; The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again. Then they remembered his words.

But I seriously doubt that a normal mother would forget something like that. No, she'd mark her calendar with bold red ink and start a vigil. The reality is: Jesus' mom simply didn't expect him to recover.

Mary loved her boy deeply; there can be no doubt about that because it was predicted while he was yet an infant that Jesus would cause his mom to experience the pain of a sword piercing her soul (Luke 2:35) which I take to mean she experienced a depth of anguish at Jesus' crucifixion that only a mother who's watched her own precious flesh and blood mutilated and crucified can truly understand how that really feels.

So I believe, with all my own parental heart, that Jesus' mom would have been the very first person out at the cemetery on Easter morning if for no other reason than to be there just in case what he predicted about his three days and three nights resurrection might actually be true. I think she would have been out there with food and water, and a fresh change of clothing like any normal mother would do for a child who's survived a terrible ordeal. My wife and I would certainly have been out there for our own son if for no other reason than to give him a ride home.

Anybody who's watched the televised home-comings of servicemen returning from Iraq and/or Afghanistan; have seen for themselves what that does to the emotions of kin waiting for their loved ones' safe return. And where do the families typically wait? At home? No, they mostly wait at the airport; sometimes several hours ahead of arrival times. If Mary had sincerely believed that her boy was going to return from his ordeal in just three days; there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that she would have already been out there on Easter morning way before anybody else arrived.

§. Isa 52:14 . . Many were amazed when they saw him— beaten and bloodied, so disfigured one would scarcely know he was human.

Did the Roman guards do all that to Christ? No. That they beat him it's true, but no man could possibly disfigure Jesus beyond human semblance. What really happened to Jesus on that cross? What went on between him and God the Judge during those three hours of inky darkness when he was made responsible for every sin the world ever committed up to that time, and ever would commit beyond it?

Let me tell you something. If God the Judge would disfigure His own beloved son beyond recognition for sins he didn't commit, what do you suppose He has in store for people who mock him?

OBJECTION : What about John 19:26-27? "When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother; Woman, behold your son! Then He said to the disciple; Behold your mother! And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home." - - Doesn't that indicate Mary was out of town?

Does anyone really know the location of the home of the disciple whom Jesus loved?

The word "took" doesn't automatically imply that the disciple whom Jesus loved put Mary in his car and drove her to his house. It can also mean to accept something and/or someone; like in marriage vows; e.g. Do you take ____ to be your lawfully wedded wife? A good example of that application is when Joseph awoke from the dream sequence in Matt 1:24; he took to him his wife Mary. But they didn't actually cohabit till after they were married. From that angle, it can be seen that the disciple, whom Jesus loved, accepted the care of Jesus' mom without hesitation; as if she were his own kin.

The disciple whom Jesus loved was still in Jerusalem on resurrection morning (Luke 24:9, John 20:2-9). So I think it's safe to assume his new dependant was still in Jerusalem too; most especially if she was expecting her boy to recover. So Jesus' mom had an opportunity to go out to the cemetery on the third day with Peter and John (John 20:1-10), but didn't. Jesus' mom and Mary Magdalena were close friends (John 19:25). Even after her friend Mary M. reported Jesus alive, Jesus' mom still didn't go out to see if maybe he was.

The first woman on record to see Jesus back from the dead wasn't his kin; no, it was an outsider, Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9, John 20:11-18). And she subsequently became Jesus' messenger to the other disciples; which of course, would include his mom.

Think of that— the so-called Mother Of God, the Queen Of Heaven, the prime focus of prayer and mediation between Catholics and Heaven, the "Madonna of the" everything you can imagine and believed to be the channel of graces from God —wasn't the very first woman to whom Jesus showed himself alive and back from death! Doesn't that seem just a bit odd to you? Shouldn't Jesus at the very least have shown himself alive to his own mother first in order to solace her grief at his passing? Well . .he would have; had she been out to the cemetery on time.

Later that first day, Jesus showed himself alive to more disciples, and yet even then his mother isn't named among the group (John 20:19-20). And there's no record that he ever made a special trip to the home of the disciple to whom he entrusted his mom's care. Jesus' mom isn't named among the disciples until after he left the earth (Acts 1:9-14) and then she disappears; never mentioned again in not one single verse in the rest of the New Testament. Paul doesn't even list her name among any of those that saw Jesus alive (1Cor 15:3-8).

The conclusion to draw from Mary's conspicuous absence at the tomb, and from subsequent events, should be obvious to any unbiased observer. God's Spirit— the inspirer and custodian of holy writ —knowing human nature's propensity to elevate motherhood to the heights of deity, and gravitate towards a female-centered religion; deliberately left Mary's activities blank from the day of her son's death to the day of Pentecost, and afterwards, in order to discourage unwarranted veneration of an ordinary human being so as to keep the spotlight on the Christ of Christianity where it belongs. But Roman Catholicism's hierarchy has managed to somehow circumvent the Holy Ghost, and do exactly what He would prefer they didn't.

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

When Elizabeth made that statement, she's stated to be 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" does not 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 an international language 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 inserted at the discretion of translators, and often reflect their own best guess, and quite possibly their own personal religious beliefs. 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 worshipped him).

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 even New Testament Christianity; no, their religion was Old Testament Judaism. According to their religion, it's appropriate to address Aaronic priests and 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 genetic right to rule over her own self, as well as over the whole nation of Israel.

§. Luke 1:31-33 …He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!

§. 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 attempt to read Gentile Christian thinking into the Bible and thus err in regards to Jesus' 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 that so obsesses Catholics today. All she knew was Jesus' Jewish relationship to Davidic royalty, and that is how she addressed him.

Kurios also means sir and mister. People commonly addressed Jesus by that title; 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 most Catholics would dearly love to assume always means God. In her case, it certainly did not mean God at all; not even close.

Before we get into this topic, 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 Jesus' birth, and leaves her virginity after Jesus' birth open to conjecture and there is plenty of that going around.

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 Christians have always believed in Mary's perpetual virginity; citing the teachings and beliefs of an elite group that they piously label "church 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 an otherwise fertile Jewish couple in that era would plan to wed with the full intent of living a 100% platonic marriage in a community where such a practice was culturally ridiculous. Childless women were culturally viewed as a social embarrassment.

§. 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.

§. 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.

Two questions will be addressed in this discussion about Mary's perpetual virginity.

OBJECTION : Scripture records Jesus giving the care of His mother to the disciple whom Jesus loved. If Mary had other children then this duty would have been theirs not John's, and Jesus would have sinned on the cross by delegating his mother's care to an outsider. This proves there were no other children.

Who says they weren't there? That particular kind of reasoning is called an "argument from silence." In other words, if something isn't clearly stated, then it's inferred from the silence that there was nothing to state.

The sad fact of the matter is; Jesus' family didn't believe in him (John 7:5) in point of fact, they thought he had quite gone mad (Mark 3:21). Would you entrust the "mother of God" to unbelievers and/or to people who think Christ is insane?

OBJECTION : If Jesus had siblings, then why were they not invited to the wedding at Cana? Mary, Jesus and Jesus' disciples were invited, so why not the rest of the family?

That's yet another of example of reasoning from silence. Who says the rest of the family wasn't invited? All that can be safely deduced from John 2:1-2 is that Jesus and his disciples came to the wedding because they were invited. BTW: I see that Jesus' mom was there too. Where's the mention of her invitation? She must have been a gate crasher; right?

There's always a question as to why Jesus chose the disciple whom he loved to take care of his mother rather than one of the other disciples; especially over and above Peter, the so-called rock of the church. Well, that was just a practicality. The disciple whom Jesus loved was the default as all the other disciples abandoned him in his last moments; even Peter. John was selected simply because he was at hand and none of the others were. BTW: Would you want one of those yellow-bellies looking out for your mom's welfare when the chips are down and the wolf is at the door?

Curious Question: Why does everybody say it was the apostle John to whom Jesus delegated the care of his mother? I cannot find it in the Bible.

Personally, I've never been all that satisfied that the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 19:25-27) was the apostle John. I'm aware of the convictions of very early writers (e.g. Iranaeus) that the apostle John authored the Gospel of John. However, I cannot find any evidence within the gospel itself that clearly, and without ambiguity, identifies its author as the apostle John. The closest I have been able to find is the passage below.

§. John 21:20-24 . .Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said; Lord, who is going to betray you?) When Peter saw him, he asked; Lord, what about him? Jesus answered; If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me. This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

At first glance it appears that passage identifies the author of the Gospel of John as the apostle John, but that would be circular reasoning as the Gospel itself was neither titled "John" in its original form, nor did its author autograph it "John". The gospel's title "John" was a later editorial addition.

Iranaeus believed the apostle John did indeed author "a" Gospel. In speaking of the composition of the Four Gospels, he says of the last: "Later John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2).

I am willing to accept that Iranaeus is probably correct since he was a student of Polycarp, who himself was apparently a student of the apostle John. However, the bottom line is, nobody really knows if the Gospel in our possession today that we know as John, is the version Iranaeus spoke of. For all we know, the apostle John's Gospel has been lost and the one that bears his name today is simply a convenient way of referring to it.

I think it's very possible that the true author of the Gospel that bears the apostle John's name was the coordinated work of a minimum of at least two journalists who got their information from the disciple whom Jesus loved; but apparently elected not to provide the world with his name. If theirs was an inspired work, then we have only God's spirit to blame for the omission.

I have a sneaking suspicion that in reality; all four Gospel narratives were contributed by anonymous donors. Christianity's Jewish opponents are sometimes quick to point out that Christians have built their faith upon spiritual documents that apparently came out of nowhere. But I simply remind them that many of the books in the Tanakh are anonymous too, yet they seem to have no trouble readily accepting those as inspired by God right along with the books whose authors are clearly identified. All I can say is: Caveat Lector.

Curious Question: If Jesus had no male siblings, then why is he labeled Mary's firstborn son? (Matt 1:25). Doesn't the label "firstborn son" indicate Mary had more sons after Jesus' birth?

The label "firstborn" doesn't always indicate the son born first. In Jewish custom; the label is primarily a title: viz: a rank; which is transferable to a younger male sibling; e.g. Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Rueben and Joseph, and Ephraim and Manasseh.

It's well to note that when Jesus was born; he was Mary's firstborn son, not Joseph's; so that within the family hierarchy, Jesus was nothing to Joseph up until he adopted the young Jesus; at which time the boy obtained a legal right to Joseph's name, a spot in his family tree, and a right to inheritance.

Webster's defines "foster" as: affording, receiving, or sharing nurture or parental care though not related by blood or legal ties

Foster children are no more related to their parents than to a baby sitter or a nanny. Under those circumstances, the children have no right to their dad's name, nor any right to an inheritance, nor any right to a spot in their dad's family tree. However, Matthew places Jesus squarely in Joseph's pedigree right out of the box; clearly indicating Joseph was Jesus' adopted dad rather than foster.

§. Matt 1:1-17 . .A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac . .and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ . . Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

The very fact that Jesus obtained Solomon's throne through his dad is evidence that Jesus held the rank of Joseph's firstborn too even though the man was not Jesus' biological father because adoption primogeniture is just as binding as natural primogeniture. And besides, Joseph really had no say in this matter as Yhvh had already decreed Jesus' supremacy in Luke 1:32-33 even before the lad was born; just as He had decreed Jacob's in Gen 25:23.

OBJECTION : The Greek word prōtótokos in Luke 2:7 actually means "firstborn". Here the word carries none of the theological load which it bears elsewhere when used of Christ. Jesus is simply identified as the first male child born to Mary. When used in this context, it necessarily means there was at least a second male child, or more, born to her.

The objector's application of the word prototokos is inconsistent to say the least. The word implies something far more important than just simply primogeniture; viz: birth order. Jesus is not only prototokos in rank in Joseph's family, but also prototokos in rank over all of creation itself.

§. Col 1:15 . .Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (prototokos ) over all creation.

Protokokos very definitely carries a "theological load". It should always be remembered that the New Testament's Jesus came from an ancient Hebrew culture. The religion that he, and his mom and dad believed and practiced, was Old Testament Judaism; not New Testament Christianity.

In Old Testament Judaism, the rank of firstborn son is not an inalienable right, nor is it solely dictated by primogeniture; viz: birth order; but is a transferable status that can be conferred upon a younger male sibling; e.g. Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Rueben and Joseph, and Ephraim and Manasseh.

With respect to ancient Hebrew culture, even if Jesus had remained Mary's only male child for the rest of her natural life, he would have still held the status of her firstborn son regardless; because in the ancient Hebrew culture; the status is not solely related to chronology. This is an important point and not one to be blown off lightly in favor of one's own personal theories.

David himself; though not biologically born of God, nevertheless once held the status of God's firstborn son.

§. Ps 89:3-27 . .I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant . . Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

So you see, in ancient Hebrew culture, which was the culture of Jews in the New Testament, the status of firstborn is not always related to chronology, nor is it even related to biological birth.

If people want to construe the term "firstborn son" to indicate Mary had more sons, be my guest; but I am not going down that road. That's taking liberties with sacred writings, and leads one to indulge in stretches of the imagination.

OBJECTION : In Luke 2:7 the Holy Spirit could have used monogenes to denote Jesus as Mary's only son if that was the case. However, He didn't! He calls Jesus Mary's "firstborn"

That objector should follow the Holy Spirit's lead in this matter and accept that He was putting the emphasis on Jesus' status within the family hierarchy rather than upon his birth chronology. We are, after all, peering into ancient Hebrew culture, rather than ancient Christian culture when studying the Gospel narratives. Failure to interpret the Gospels from the perspective of ancient Jewish culture inevitably leads Gentile bible students into error.

OBJECTION : But in Luke 7:12, a man is carried out to a funeral who was the only son of his widowed mother. The word translated "only son" is monogenes indicating she had no other sons but the one. That is the word the Holy Spirit would have used if he intended people to believe Jesus was the only male son born to Joseph's wife.

The emphasis in Luke 2:7 and Col 1:15 is not upon Jesus' chronological birth order, but rather, upon his rank in not only Joseph's family but also his rank in God's universe (cf. Dan 7:13-14).

Jesus is not only the monogenes son in God's family (John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1John 4:9) but also the prototokos son in it too.

§. Rom 8:29 . .For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His son, that he might be the firstborn (prototokos) among many brethren.

According to the objector's logic, Jesus is not only the son born first, but also the daughter born first since Rom 8:29 relates the word to both genders in God's home.

OBJECTION : Jesus is said to be "the" son of Mary rather "a" son. The definite article "the" is used rather than the indefinite article "a" indicating that Mary had no other male sons than Jesus.

§. Mark 6:3 . .Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

The Greek adjective ho for "the carpenter" is the same adjective for "the son" of Mary. Was there only one carpenter in all of Nazareth? No, according to the sacred record, Jesus' dad was a carpenter too.

§. Matt 13:55 . .Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

In Matthew's version, Jesus' dad is labeled "the carpenter" while in Mark's version Jesus is labeled "the carpenter" and Jesus is also labeled the carpenter's son rather than Mary's son. So then, when you combine the two versions— as any District Attorney worth his salt would certainly do with testimony from multiple witnesses of the same scene —it's easily seen that some in the synagogue preferred to think of Jesus as daddy's boy, and some preferred to think of him as mommy's boy. Which tells me that putting too much emphasis on definitive articles can cause one to go away with the wrong impression when they fail to pay attention to details.

There are instances in the New Testament labeling boys "the son" when at the same time there are other male siblings in the family; e.g. Matt 1:1, Matt 22:42, and Mark 1:19

OBJECTION : If my brother was going to be executed, I would be there for him in his last hours and I suspect you would do the same for yours. Doesn't their absence prove Jesus had no biological siblings; especially since his execution occurred during Passover when the whole family would have been in Jerusalem for the feast?

To begin with, all of Jesus' male companions abandoned him in his final moments except for just the one disciple.

Although it might be safe to assume Jesus' mom was in Jerusalem for the purpose of the feast, the sacred text does not clearly state that she was; but rather, lists her among the "many women" who accompanied Jesus from Galilee in order to minister to his needs (Matt 27:55-56, Mark 15:40-41, John 19:25).

The women at first stayed back a ways; just as Peter had done the night Jesus was arrested (Matt 26:58) no doubt fearful to be identified with Jesus just in case the Jewish authorities were making a clean sweep of all his associates (cf. John 20:19).

However, it cannot be proven Jesus' siblings actually did attend the feast because it isn't necessary to participate in the primary day of Passover if one has a legitimate excuse for being away. There is an alternate day one month later for people who can't make it to the main event (Num 9:9-13).

And besides, this section's purpose is not to discuss the possibility of Jesus having biological siblings, but rather to discuss whether or not Jesus' mom was a perpetual virgin. The non listing of siblings at the cross does in no way prove that Joseph and his wife never slept together and/or tried to have children of their own.

Jesus had other kin in his home town of Nazareth besides Joseph and Mary (Matt 13:54-57). Why aren't they listed at the cross? Probably because the Holy Spirit didn't think their names were all that germane to the narrative or maybe they just simply weren't all that interested in watching the Romans kill their Jesus via crucifixion.

Some people's sensitivities are such that they are horrified by blood rather than entertained by it. When I was a kid in school, it always disturbed me to see a crowd of boys gather around a fight and start cheering for their favorites; when all I could think of is: Why doesn't someone stop it before they seriously hurt each other? Watching gladiators chop, slash, and impale each other with axes, swords, and spears in the coliseum at Rome is not my idea of either a good time nor of wholesome entertainment. Death by crucifixion is a grisly scene; and I just don't think that everyone present for the Passover that year was interested in watching one take place. Thank God crucifixions were done outside the city so nobody had to see it unless they chose to.

No, there are just too many unanswered questions and missing details to justify construing the absence of Jesus' siblings on the list of persons at the cross as conclusive evidence Joseph and Mary had no other children besides Jesus; or that they never tried to have children, nor that they never once slept together.

When the complete facts of a matter are withheld, people's minds quite naturally jump to conclusions; just as Joseph's brothers led Jacob to jump to his own conclusion when asked to identify his son's tunic that they soaked in lamb's blood (Gen 37:31-34). Propaganda machines like Madison Avenue and presidential campaigns bank upon human nature's tendency to use its own imagination rather than seek more facts so people can make an informed decision rather than one based upon impressions, allusions, and conjecture.

OBJECTION : Joseph had to be an older man when he and Mary wed because a young carpenter in those days wouldn't have accumulated enough funds to purchase a wife. If Mary was, say, eighteen when Jesus was born, then she would have been at least 51 when he died; which means that Joseph by then would have been a senior citizen and easily old enough to die of natural causes.

Apparently it never occurred to that objector that maybe the low income people of that day married among themselves instead of crossing the tracks? Good Lord! It's as if some people only just yesterday fell off the back of a cabbage truck and have no knowledge of normal human experience whatsoever; and anyway, Mary's offering for herself suggests that Joseph had very little money in his budget when Jesus was a baby.

§. Luke 2:21-24 . .On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to The Lord (as it is written in the Law of The Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord"), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."

§. Lev 12:6-8 . .When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before Yhvh to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

The sacrifice for new mommies and babies is supposed to be a lamb; and the substitution of two doves or two pigeons for the lamb is for those who cannot afford the lamb. Surely a man of supposedly sufficient wealth to "purchase" a wife would have enough put aside to buy at least one measly yearling lamb in order to protect his beloved bride from legal complications.

Mary's baby was no surprise to Joseph. He knew in advance that she had a bun in the oven (Matt 1:18-21). So there was sufficient time to save towards the lamb, but it's obvious that Joseph's income was so meager that he was living from hand to mouth when he and Jesus' mom wed and there just wasn't any money for a lamb. In point of fact, it wasn't unusual for newlyweds in the past to live in the same home with the groom's parents; whose home the groom would inherit anyway when his father died.

There used to be a custom for the bride's father to set her up with a dowry when she left home to marry (Gen 31:14-16). So, not only was Joseph himself too strapped to purchase the proper sacrifice, but so was his wife.

Joseph's trade was carpentry (Matt 13:55). He was a low-income blue collar worker who couldn't possibly be expected to be wealthy in that day and age in the land of Israel.

OBJECTION : What about Ste Jerome's reason that: What bigger blessing could two Moses-trained Jewish adults wish for than the Messiah? Surely they would neither want, nor need, any additional children.

That is truly an amazing statement coming from a religion that doesn't believe in birth control and/or planned parenthood; plus the statement itself is a blatant non sequitur. Moses-trained Jewish adults would never stop at just one child just because the first one was some sort of wunderkind. And what about daughters? Are little girls a curse? Don't you think Mary would've liked at least one little girl in her home? And let's remember that Jesus was Mary's kid. Don't you think Joseph would want some children of his own? Yes, he would, because that's no doubt why he was engaged to wed Mary in the first place.

You see, it would be thoroughly un-Jewish to limit Joseph's family to just Mary's kid. It's only right that she help Joseph produce some of his own to carry on the family name. Catholics are so heartless.

My thanks to that objector for proving a point. It is as I have insisted all along. Rome invented the holy couple's platonic chastity right out of the fantasies of their own human reasoning rather than deriving it from apostolic revelation.

§. Ps 127:3-5 . .Behold, children are a gift of Yhvh; the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them!

By limiting the household to just Mary's kid, Joseph would be relegated to a woman's helper rather than the way God planned marriage from the very beginning.

§. Gen 2:18-19 . .Then Yhvh God said; It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him an helper suitable for him.

You see, Mary was supposed to be Joseph's helper, not the other way around. Therefore, it was her sacred duty to help her husband bring his own children into the world.

For those who haven't already guessed, the basis of Rome's reasoning is that men somehow contaminate the sanctity of women when they copulate; consequently: it is unthinkable (in their minds at least) that any man, including Joseph, would dare to insert his filthy pudendum into the very birth canal that bore The Holy Son Of God; ergo: Catholicism implies that Joseph would have insulted God's sensibilities had he slept with his own wife.

Moses taught his people (which eo ipso includes Joseph and his Jewish wife) that Jewish men and women both contaminate each other by copulation; and temporarily render Jewish males unsuitable to participate in worship services and partake of holy things (e.g. Ex 19:15, Lev 15:16-18, 1Sam 21:4). So then, if, and whenever, Joseph and his wife copulated, she made him just as contaminated as he made her.

Rome's dogma is thoroughly inconsistent with one of its own Popes— I can't remember exactly which —who wrote a treatise on the beauty of sex in marriage. Apparently sex is beautiful in marriage for ordinary rank and file pew warmers, but not for Joseph and his wife. For the holy couple, normal marital relations are carnal, nasty, and unthinkable; which again, is inconsistent with Jewish culture. Moses taught his people (which eo ipso includes Joseph and his Jewish wife) that it is blessed to procreate.

§. Gen 1:27 . .God created man in his image; in the divine image He created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying; Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.

For Abraham's posterity (which eo ipso includes Joseph and his Jewish wife) to fail to make an honest effort to procreate, would be inconsistent with 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.

There are Catholics who sincerely believe it is a sin to marry with no intention of producing offspring; and that if one spouse should later change their mind and express a wish to remain childless, then the other has grounds for annulment. A Catholic belief of that nature would make Joseph and his wife sinners if they did not sleep together and make an honest effort to produce children in accordance with Gen 1:27 and Gen 22:17.

OBJECTION : You haven't taken into account the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, written around 380ad, for a logical rebuttal to your erroneous beliefs regarding Mary's perpetual virginity.

I consider it much more profitable to consider the controversy between Rome's man-made fantasies and the Bible's realities.

§. Matt 16:23 . .Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.

§. John 12:48-49 . .He who rejects me, and does not receive my sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father himself who sent me has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak.

Catholics who persist in rejecting the New Testament as Almighty God's final authority, are doomed to be judged by that very same New Testament rather than only by their church's proprietary catechism, or its traditions, its encyclicals, its ecumenical councils, the beliefs and opinions its so-called church fathers; and its man-made myths and fantasies.

§. Isa 8:20 . .To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The Holy Spirit, the divine inspirer of holy writ, puts the emphasis on Mary's virginity at the time of Jesus' birth. I think it's quite out of harmony with God's Spirit to quarrel over whether or not Joseph and his Jewish wife lived out their days in platonic chastity after Jesus was born. It reminds me of a scene in an old Sean Connery movie titled "The Name Of The Rose" where church dignitaries argued whether the Christ owned the clothes that he wore, or not. Thousands of souls are tumbling into the dungeons of Hell every hour even as we speak, and that's where those dignitaries put the emphasis?!

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, one person dies every 12 seconds in America. That's 7,200 homeland deaths in the course of just one 24-hour day. If, say, 1/3 of those deaths are underage children, that would mean 4,799 adult-aged Americans leave this life every day: almost 200 per hour. According to Jesus' testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to Hell and eternal punishment; the majority of those adults are not making it to safety when they cross over to the other side (Matt 7:13-14, Matt 22:14).

Giving them the benefit of the doubt; even just a simple 51% majority of those 4,799 adults is 2,447 people per day. Those numbers would fill the new 51,800 seat Yankee Stadium in just a little over twenty-one days; and that's only the numbers arriving in Hell from America. Similar numbers are arriving from other countries all around the world; and a portion of those people are Roman Catholics.

Do you really think that any of the Roman Catholics suffering right this minute in the Bible's hell really give a flying duck anymore about whether or not Jesus' mom remained a perpetual virgin?

§. 1Tim 6:3-5 . .If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of depraved minds and deprived of the truth.

BTW: Less than 5,000 American military died in Iraq between 03/19/03 and 02/19/09. In that same period of time 15,580,800 people died here at home— a ratio of homeland deaths to military deaths of 3,116 to 1

The Holy Spirit, the divine inspirer of holy writ, puts the emphasis on Jesus' virgin birth. Therefore I think it's immature, and quite out of harmony with God's Spirit, to quarrel over whether or not Joseph and his Jewish wife lived out their days in platonic chastity after Jesus was born. It's equivalent to doing the dishes in the sink while every room in the house is in flames. And it reminds me of a scene in an old Sean Connery movie titled The Name Of The Rose, where church dignitaries argued whether the Christ owned the clothes that he wore, or not. Thousands of dying souls are tumbling into the dungeons of Hell every hour even as we speak, and that's where they put the priority?!

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, one person dies ever 13 seconds in America. That's 6,646 American deaths in the course of one 24-hour day. That's enough deaths to fill the New Yankee stadium in only eight days; and that's just the numbers in America. Similar numbers are dying in countries around the world. According to Jesus' own personal testimony, the majority of those people are not making it to safety when they cross over to the other side (Matt 7:13-14, Matt 22:14).

Do you really think that any of the Roman Catholics suffering right this minute in the Bible's hell really give a flying duck anymore about whether or not Jesus' mom remained a perpetual virgin; or that anybody in Heaven really gives a rat's past about it either?

The teaching of Jesus' mom being a "new Eve" is a proprietary Catholic fantasy not found in the New Testament. The whole idea is concocted from construing certain passages to mean things that they don't say in writing.

In order for Jesus' mom to be considered a true Eve, she and Jesus would have to be the parents of an entirely different human race distinctly separate from the race that God created with Adam and Eve.

The proprietary in-house Catholic concept of Jesus' mom being a "new Eve" and Jesus being a "new Adam" implies the vilest sort of incest: that of a mother sleeping with her own son and bearing his children.

Though born-again Christians are a new race of human being, they are not Mary's children: no, they are God's.

§. John 1:12-13 . .But as many as accepted him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, even to those who rely upon his name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

§. John 3:5-6 . .Jesus answered; I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and The Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but The Spirit gives birth to spirit.

The second births about which John wrote, and about which Jesus spoke, are the result of creative acts of God.

§. Gal 6:15 . .For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor un-circumcision, but a new creature.

Catholicism's "new Eve" is extrapolated from its own faulty logic; e.g. since Mary is the mother of God, and God makes men new creatures via a second birth performed by God, then to Catholicism, Mary is, in effect, the mother of all born-again Christians. However, God doesn't have a mother: from the vanishing point in the past, to the vanishing point in the future, God always was, and He always will be because the Bible's God is an eternal life. Though Mary was Jesus' mother, nobody has ever been God's mother. Jesus was a flesh and blood human being; while God is, and always has been, spirit rather than flesh (John 4:24).

It didn't. The Holy Bible clearly, and without ambiguity, lays responsibility for the entry of sin into the world squarely upon Adam (Gen 2:16-17, Rom 5:12, Rom 5:14-19). Eve instigated their sin, but her own act didn't do the trick. It wasn't until Adam's eating that anything serious happened (Gen 3:6-7).

2) .Mary's submission to the Angel's announcement implies she was given a choice (Luke 1:38).

The Angel's announcement sought neither consent nor decision. It simply informed Mary quite clearly, and without ambiguity, prior to her volunteered submission, that the Holy Spirit was going to make her pregnant with a child who would become the ultimate Israeli monarch (Luke 1:31-35).

Catholicism's in-house teaching that Mary was a special creation isn't found in The Holy Bible. There is absolutely nothing in the sacred record indicating that she wasn't an ordinary Jewish child produced by two ordinary Jewish parents descended from Abraham and from Adam and Eve.

If perchance Mary had been a special creation, then Jesus himself would have been the offspring of a special creation, and in no way genetically related to either David, Abraham, nor Adam; and thus totally disqualified from inheriting David's throne and/or redeeming the sins of his fellow man. However, the Bible clearly, and without ambiguity, says David was Jesus' genetic kin (Luke 1:32, Acts 13:22-23, Rom 1:3) therefore Mary couldn't possibly have been a special creation.

OBJECTION : The Old Testament says that the woman (Eve) comes from man (Adam), while in the New Testament: The new Adam (Christ) comes from woman (Mary). There, the sin of Adam and Eve would be reversed.

Nice try, but the objector's logic is faulty. Though Christ was born of a woman; he wasn't created from a woman. Christ's genealogy in Luke attests that he descended from the first Adam rather than Mary.

Since I too was born of a woman, and since I too descended from the first Adam; then Christ is truly my fellow man in every sense of the word.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Christ was created from Mary's rib like Eve was created from the first Adam's rib. Would that make Christ unique? No, it wouldn't make him any more nor less unique than Eve because Mary's ribs came from the first Adam just as Eve's ribs came from the first Adam. And Mary's ova came from the first Adam just like Eve's ova came from the first Adam. When you start with the first Adam, you end with the first Adam; viz: more of himself. That's just simple genetics.

While true that Mary is an Eve, she is not a new Eve; no, she's a genetic replica of the original Eve the same as every other woman who descends from the first Adam.

Christ isn't labeled a new Adam in the New Testament. He's labeled "the last Adam" and a "second man". The significance of those titles goes way beyond simply reversing the effects of sin. Christ's office as a last Adam and a second man, is intimately associated with the second births about which he spoke in John 3:3-8. Christ testified that a second birth is not optional; no, it is a "must" if one is to enter the kingdom of God.

Paul testified that flesh and blood shall not enter the kingdom of God (1Cor 15:50). People made of flesh and blood are members of the first race of Man. People made of supernatural stuff are members of the second race of Man. So, there is a natural race, and there is a supernatural race.

Everybody— regardless of their religious affiliation and/or their degree of righteousness and piety —who fails to obtain membership in the supernatural race before passing on, will be instantly transferred to the Bible's hell the moment they cross over to the other side. This rule applies to Jesus' mom, and to super-duper Christians like Mother Teresa and Billy Graham as well as to porn queens and serial killers like Gordon Stewart Northcott, Ted Bundy, and Jeffrey Dahmer— no exceptions and no excuses.

Though suggestive; the term "new Adam" is a misnomer. It's supposed to be last Adam and second man; not new Adam: and the last Adam isn't even a human being; no, the last Adam is a spirit being.

§. 1Cor 15:45-46 . .So it is written: the first man Adam was created a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

The first Adam's life wasn't in itself. No, the first Adam was created a sentient life by an outside power over life. In stark contrast, the last Adam's life is in itself. Nobody had to create the last Adam a sentient life, because the last Adam is the source of all life, and is itself an Eternal Life that never had a beginning nor will ever have an ending (1John 1:1-2).

The Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that it's possible for someone to exist simultaneously as a human being and as a spirit being both at the same time. But the Christ of The Holy Bible is the irrefutable example of such a possibility. The Holy Bible's Christ existed as a spirit being way, way before he co-existed as a human being.

§. John 1:1-4 . .In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life;

It is very, very significant that Jesus didn't say to his fellow Jewish countrymen "I was", no he said I am clearly indicating that in the days of his earthly existence, Jesus was an eternal being while simultaneously co-existing as a mortal being.

KJ Howell's explanation of the term "New Eve" supposes that Eve was a virgin the day she succumbed to the Serpent's reasoning and ate the forbidden fruit. His explanation is no doubt predicated upon the data indicating that Eve and her husband produced their first child of record after they were expelled from the garden.

§. Gen 3:23-4:1 . .So Yhvh God banished him from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After He drove the man out, He placed on the east side of the garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.

However, there is nothing in the sacred text clearly, and without ambiguity, indicating that Eve was a virgin prior to Gen 4:1. At the very most, it can only be safely deduced from the data that she wasn't a mother at the time. And it would seem to me thoroughly illogical to assume that the first couple— the most perfect specimens of human psyche and physicality that ever existed —were frigid up until the moment they ate the fruit; especially since God had already blessed them with fertility on the sixth day of creation, and encouraged them to procreate prior to the forbidden fruit incident.

I have, in the past, challenged Catholics to provide me with just one good reason why Joseph and his Jewish wife did not at least try to have children of their own after Jesus was born. The response I got?

Nobody cites the Bible; but rather, they cite Ste. Jerome's logic saying; " What bigger blessing could two Moses-trained Jewish adults wish for than the Messiah?" In other words, according to Ste. Jerome's logic; surely Joseph and his wife would neither want, nor need, any additional children than Jesus: implying that Joseph and his wife had fewer paternal feelings for children than people do today for a pair of Manolo Blahik heels. Personally, I have yet to know of anyone whose pair of Blahniks were their only pair of shoes.

If Jerome didn't believe the holy couple had children of their own; fine. But it was a gross error in his reasoning to assume that Joseph and his wife didn't at least sleep together without first proving— clearly, and without ambiguity —that their libidos were somehow miraculously disabled.

No, it has to be assumed, from the normal round of human experience, that Adam and his wife slept together prior to the forbidden fruit incident, and it has to be assumed from the normal round of human experience that Joseph and his wife slept together after Jesus was born. Otherwise I am forced to seriously question Joseph's sexual preference.

You know, prior to their expulsion, Adam and his wife associated in the nude. Exactly how KJ Howell could possibly believe that an otherwise normal, red-blooded man can associate 24-7 with a nude specimen of the most perfect female form in existence, and not get aroused to mate, can't help but make me question KJ Howell's own sexual preference.

§. Matt 4:8-11 . .the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to him: All these things I will give you, if you get down and worship me. Then Jesus said to him; Go, Satan! For it is written you shall worship The Lord your God, and serve Him only.

According to that incident in Jesus' life, worship should be accompanied by service.

The koiné Greek word for worship in that passage is proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o) which means: to fawn or crouch to; e.g. as a dog might lick its master's hand; also to prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore)

The word for serve is latreuo (lat-ryoo'-o) which is derived from latris (a hired menial). Latreuo means: to minister; which can be defined as: to give aid or service; viz: to attend to the wants and/or comforts of someone; also: to pay homage.

Webster's defines homage as 1) the relationship between a feudal lord and his vassal, 2) an act done, or payment made, in meeting the obligations of vassalage, 3) an expression of high regard and/or respect— often used with pay, and 3) something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another; viz: tribute, honor.

Worship unaccompanied by service is just lip service; which Webster's defines as: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or allegiance expressed in words but not supported by deeds.

The component of service in worship was nicely displayed by the Magi when they brought the baby Jesus frankincense, gold, and myrrh (Matt 2:9-12).

Where the New Testament says the Magi "worshipped" the baby, it doesn't mean they honored a human being as God, no, it means they honored the child as the ultimate Jewish king in the line of David's royalty (Matt 2:1-2). Therefore, their gifts weren't just courteous gratuities; no, they were tribute— all valuable trade items in Jesus' day, and no doubt came in handy later on to finance Joseph's sojourn in Egypt.

Although it isn't recorded in The Bible; the wise men no doubt worshipped Herod with tributes too when they were brought into his presence because that was the customary protocol in those days. It doesn't mean they thought Herod was a god— although The Bible does rank federal heads as divine beings (Ps 82) —no, it only means they respected his Roman kingship just as they respected Jesus' messianic kingship, because proskuneo isn't restricted to celestial personages, but extends to earthly personages as well.

In earthly homage; Jesus himself actually worshipped Rome (Matt 22:16-22). The reason Jesus refused to render homage to The Devil is because Satan is a celestial personage— which is why no one should ever attempt to pay homage to Mary and/or departed saints because they're no longer earthly personages; but celestial.

The gospels primarily present Jesus of Nazareth as not only that one whom Isaiah predicted would one day come to die for his Jewish countrymen's sins and rule over the house of Jacob; but also as the one Daniel predicted to rule the world as its supreme potentate; overseer of all other forms of federal, state, and local governments. To worship Jesus of Nazareth then, in the strict New Testament sense, and in complete harmony with Old Testament messianic teachings, is to take the place of a vassal and serve him as your king; in particular; the supreme God-ordained future world ruler.

§. Ps 2:7-12 . .I will proclaim the decree of The Lord: He said to me; You are my son; today I have become your father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.

. . Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

There are far too many professing Xians out and about in the world mouthing that Jesus is their lord without comprehending that if he is indeed their lord, then they are his vassals; and that they are obligated to look out for, not their own best interests, but for their master's own best interests; and regarding Christian knowledge, to represent, not their own opinions and ideas; but to represent their master's.

So then, Christians are supposed to be prophets; viz: they are supposed to be representing their master's way of thinking rather than representing their own.

§. Rom 16:17-19 . .And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people's faith by teaching things that are contrary to what you have been taught. Stay away from them. Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people.

It isn't necessary for a professing Xian to be inerrant when speaking for their master. It is only necessary that they believe themselves inerrant. If a professing Christian, who believes themselves to be a servant of Christ, cannot represent their master's Christian knowledge with that kind of confidence— if they feel there's even the teensiest possibility they might be wrong —then they should keep their mouths shut and not speak at all.

§. 1Pet 4:11 . .If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the oracles of God.

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.

§. 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 rather than a dissenter.

For example: I was baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic church in 1944, attended its catechism, and anon completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation. In 1968 I totally renounced Rome, and sometime around 1977 was baptized by a Conservative Baptist minister into the Protestant side of Christianity. That made me an apostate; viz: I made a clean break with Rome rather than staying affiliated with it. You see: apostates leave and go outside, while heretics stay and remain inside.

OBJECTION: Just because I oppose Rome's stance on some things doesn't mean I'm a bad Catholic! I'm just being democratic; after all: dissent is a human right.

America 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 Christ's hierarchy and compliance with the catechism and the laws of God. Christ is not a plastic monarch. His wishes are not optional; they are law and nobody gets to vote on them.

§. 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 Christ's hierarchy; therefore, Catholics who dissent with Rome are actually rebelling against the Christ whom Rome represents.

§. Heb 13:17 . . Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

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

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 suffer zero tolerance for dissent.

One of the more frightening parables in the New Testament is one that wraps with the words "Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27). Now you can make of that wrap whatever you like, but I see in it a Christ who intends to squash rebellion in the ranks— with blood and with violence.

"You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery." (Ps 2:9)

"And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." (Rev 19:15)

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."

I renounced Rome because I could not remain a Catholic in good conscience. I would have in fact been a vile and disgusting two-faced hypocrite had I remained. I felt it was better for me and better for Rome if we parted company rather than for me remain aboard as a dissident because it is the Lord's wishes that his followers honor his theocracy with their whole heart. Well; I could not do that inside The Church. I had to self-excommunicate. It was the honorable thing to do.

§. 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.

Paul and Peter were members of the hierarchy. Rank and file pew warmer are not permitted to challenge the hierarchy; they are expected to do as they're told.

§. Heb 13:17 . .Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you

§. Titus 3:10-11 . .If anyone is causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with that person. For people like that have turned away from the truth. They are sinning, and they condemn themselves.

We are indignant with Catholics applying the Catholic name to themselves when all the while publicly undermining the authority and integrity of Catholic Church leadership. We are especially chafed by subversives who publicly discredit the text of the New American Bible— an official Catholic Bible certified by their own Church's imprimatur and nihil obstat, and introduced with a testimonial by Paulus PP VI. Those kinds of Catholics are telling me they don't trust Catholic scholarship; nor do they accept overall Papal authority.

And heretic Catholics who condemn and oppose Vatican II are the worst kinds of rebels as they are refusing to accept their own hierarchy's bindings upon their beliefs and practices.

§. Matt 16:19 . .whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

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. In the 2008 Presidential election, roughly 54%-57% of the Catholic electorate that voted sided with Mr. Barack Hussein Obama; a man Rome disapproves as way too pro abortion. Did those 54%-57% listen to Rome? No, because heretics don't listen.

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; which is someone in your very own church who causes dissent, reformation, division, discord, and disharmony. Heretics are not 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 join their cause; e.g. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joseph Biden.

BTW: Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama should never have been running mates in the first place.

§. 2Cor 6:14-15 . .Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

What I find interesting about the word hairetikos is that it's used but one single time in the entire New Testament (Titus 3:10) yet Catholics wield that word as if it were a whole Bible; and utilize it like some sort of sacred mace to clobber anybody, anywhere, who disagrees at any time with the overall Catholic belief system: when they're supposed to be using that word to clobber their own schismatic Catholics, not to clobber outsiders.

Look; let me give that 74% a word of advice (and also that 6% who're undecided); and this coming from a 70 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.

For a worst-case scenario of heresy, and it's tragic consequences; see Num 16:1-40.

Roman Catholicism is the largest organized Christian religion in the world. According to the 2009 World Almanac and Book Of Facts, the approximate number of tallied Christians in the six major continents of Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, Northern America, and Oceania as of mid-2007, was 2,407,075,400 or roughly 2.41 billion. Of that number were 1,121,516,000 Catholics. Those 1.1+ billion Catholics represented a whopping 46.6% of all Christendom. The remaining 53.4% were splintered into five major non Catholic groups— 15.8% Protestant, 9.7% Orthodox, 3.4% Anglican, 18% Independents, 1.5% Marginal, and 5% Unaffiliated.

If God's experiences with Yhvh's people in the Old Testament teaches me anything at all it's that the majority is never in the right; no, it's always a remnant that's right. A remnant is what's left over; like food at the end of meal, or pieces of wood after a home is built, or material after a carpet is laid.

According to Jesus' and his Father's combined testimony as expert witnesses, only Christians in the right-now possession of eternal life qualify as valid believers (John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, 1John 5:13). That really narrows the field.

So then, we can rule out any, and all, Christian denominations that do not permit their adherents to hope for eternal life till they die and cross over to the other side. Within that group of religions just happens to be the single largest Christian denomination in the whole world: Roman Catholicism.

Are you currently in possession of eternal life— right now? The reason I ask is because according to the Bible God's testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to eternal life, professing Xians who lack eternal life; also lack His son; viz: they are quite Christless.

§. Rom 8:9 . . And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

Isn't that amazing!? Rome's huge following of 1.1+ billion Catholics are Christless Christians in grave danger of eternal suffering. Its congregation is truly a church of the living dead because according to Jesus' testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to the Living and the Dead, one must be in the present-tense possession of eternal life in order to qualify as one of the Living.

§. John 5:24 . .Truly, Truly, I say unto you; those who heed my message, and rely upon God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already transferred from Death into Life.

OBJECTION : There is nothing wrong with traditions, so long as they are founded and based in the Bible.

That's precisely where the rub is. Many of Rome's beliefs and traditions are "based" upon the Bible rather than taken from the Bible; e.g. Hollywood movies are often based upon true stories while not being duplicates of the true stories. What I mean is; movies based upon true stories are not meant to be documentaries, but rather, the concept of the movie was obtained from a true story but typically with events and circumstances altered in such a way as to make the story appeal to a larger audience.

A recent example is the 2008 movie "21" starring Kevin Spacey; about some MIT students who cleaned up in Las Vegas counting cards at Black Jack. The story is true, but the movie version of the story isn't. It's a dramatized version of the true story. If Hollywood had told the MIT students' story true to life, it would have been dull to most of the audience.

A good example of Rome's practice in this respect are prayers to the dead. Since the Bible encourages believers on the earth to pray for one another, Rome construes that it's even better to request prayer from believers in Heaven. That tradition of course is nowhere in the New Testament, but rather, based upon the New Testament just like Hollywood movies that are based upon true stories.

OBJECTION : Where in the Bible do you find where it says apostolic traditions exist only in the Bible's texts? Haven't you read 2Thss 2:15?

There's a cute movie out on DVD called Legally Blonde. In one of Elle's classes at college, her law teacher asked everybody a technical question. One of the female students tendered an answer and the Prof asked one of the male students if he agreed with the answer given by the female student. He did. Then the professor asked the male student if he was willing to bet his life that the answer the female gave was correct. He said yes. Then the Prof pointed to a male student in the front row and asked the first if was willing to bet the second student's life that the answer was correct.

You see what Rome would like to do to me? It would lik1e to bet my own life that it's so-called Apostolic Traditions are valid. Well; let me tell them a thing or two: It's my own butt that's on the line before God, not theirs; so if they don't mind, I prefer to take full responsibility for my own future rather than let Rome take the liberty of messing it up for me. If I'm going to Hell, I would rather it be upon my own recognizance than upon the questionable integrity of a self-proclaimed one true church.

Around the world within the sphere of Christianity, there is one source of revelation upon which we all pretty much agree is divinely inspired; and that's The Holy Bible. It is the universal handbook for all Christians of every denomination. So then, if Rome can't make its case from the Bible— from the universally accepted Christian handbook —then I am not willing to permit Rome to risk my future upon data from questionable sources of revelation.

The abuse of power that I see in Rome is really no different than the abuse of power prevalent in Jesus' day. Jewish religious leaders had a bad habit of enforcing church-made traditions with the negative effect of making Old Testament Judaism more strict, and more cumbersome, than it really is. Rome's so-called Apostolic Traditions, invented in Councils like Nicaea 1-2, Constantinople 1-2-3, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran 1-2-3-4-5, Lyons 1-2, Vienne, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican 1-2, have been just as effective as Judaism's traditions in making Christianity more strict, and more cumbersome, than it really is while at the same time embellishing the Bible with unscriptural myths.

Incidentally, it wasn't till Vatican 1 (1869-1870) that a Council decreed the infallibility of the Pope when, speaking as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. Since law isn't retroactive (Gal 3:17) then it would be illegal to assume that all the Popes previous to Vatican 1 spoke ex cathedra; which of course questions the validity of Leo X's Bull of Exurge Domine, 1520, proclaiming, along with many other things, that the occupants of a Purgatory are incapable of sin.

Jesus often clashed with his religion's authorities over their traditions; some of which actually overruled the written word of God (e.g. Matt 15:3, Mark 7:7-9, Mark 7:13).

OBJECTION : What about 2Thss 3:6 . .Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Unless Christians stick to the New Testament as the "tradition which he received of us" they are vulnerable to everything, and to anything.

§. Eph 4:14-15 . .Then we will no longer be like children, forever changing our minds about what we believe because someone has told us something different or because someone has cleverly lied to us and made the lie sound like the truth.

§. 1Tim 1:3-4 . .As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths

OBJECTION : You still didn't answer 2Thss 2:15 . .Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The New Testament's manuscripts were obviously incomplete when Paul penned his second letter to the Thessalonian believers; and in the really early days of Christianity, the primary source of New Testament teaching wasn't from books at all, but was totally via word of mouth; viz: itinerant evangelism. No doubt everything that Paul and Silvanus meant to pass on to their friends as tradition, via word of mouth and/or via letters, was eventually put down in writing, authored by not only Paul and Silvanus, but also by Peter, James, John, and Jude too: as those men all preached a unified, homogenous, harmonious message (cf. Gal 1:15-2:9, 2Pet 3:15-16). And whatever's supposedly missing from the sacred texts, is dangerously subject to human error, and a fertile imagination.

If Paul and his associates should show up here in Oregon at a speaking engagement, then I will listen to the traditions that they teach by mouth. Until that happens, I will obey his command to keep a strong grip on the traditions he and his associates taught by letter rather than what a modern hierarchy claims they taught by mouth; and I would advise everyone to do the same.

That is a good example of the political axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, anon it will be accepted as truth. It is totally false to say there would be no Bible but for the Catholic Church. The Old Testament canon was already completed and in wide-spread circulation throughout the Greek and Roman worlds way before Jesus himself was even born.

Nazi Germany introduced the world to rocket science; and by it America transported men to the moon and built an ICBM national defense system. Does that validate Nazi Socialism as a good political system? Of course not. While Nazi Germany may have pioneered rocket science; it's well to remember that the Roman Catholic Church did not pioneer either the Old nor the New Testament. Constantine's panel merely condensed an already-existing abundance of early Christian manuscripts that the Roman Catholic Church itself did not author; and his motives were far more political than spiritual. The man was a pig; and his panel chairman a tyrannical bully.

Modern Christian scholars of all denominations accept the existing New Testament not because it was compiled by Catholic authorities, but because they're own independent investigations have led them to conclude (as did Constantine's panel) that extant manuscripts of the New Testament scriptures are valid reproductions of the inspired originals.

Constantine himself didn't actually become a Christian until he was an old man on his death bed. Although he didn't submit to Christianity's Christ during his active years of life; he did manage to change the laws of his kingdom so that it was no longer illegal to be a Christian within his jurisdiction: which was quite prudent of him given that Christians were multiplying and might have turned to rebellion. But rivalry and agitation amongst the Christians themselves was a far greater problem.

It's a well known political principle that a nation divided in its religion cannot be unified in its politics. It was Constantine's hope that a universal Christian handbook would unify the Christian factions in his kingdom; subsequently bringing about an improved domestic tranquility. You can see how Islam's factions are causing serious problems over in Iraq. If someone could just find a way to unify Muslims, the entire Mid-East would benefit considerably.

Rome has been very good at conquering people, and at forcing people to take up its religion; but it has utterly failed to unify people's minds. Rome may subdue people, it may subjugate them and control them, it may torture and abuse them, and it may oppress them, but that doesn't mean it won them. Catholicism its very own self is infected with schism. It has failed to unify itself, let alone unify the rest of Christendom.

OBJECTION : How can you possibly think that God would let someone that you label a "pig" be responsible for one of the holiest compilation of documents to ever be introduced into the world of men?!

While I'm answering that objection, keep in mind that Constantine himself did not author the documents compiled in the New Testament, nor did anybody on his committee.

Have you ever considered the operation of the holiest sacrifice for sins ever offered in the world of men: Jesus Christ's crucifixion? Was he crucified by Christian holy men? Was he crucified by Jewish holy men? No, Jesus Christ was sacrificed for the world's sins by a pagan Roman governor's pagan Roman military garrison.

And the Temple, the one that existed in Jerusalem in Jesus' day, wasn't built under the auspices of a Jewish holy man, nor of a Christian holy man; but rather, a heathen pagan named Cyrus, king of Persia (Ez 1:1-4). That same Temple was later remodeled and beautified not by a Jewish holy man, nor by a Christian holy man, but by a bloody heathen named Herod The Great, the very same Herod who ordered the wholesale slaughter of all the little Jewish children two-years old and under (Matt 2:16). Herod's Temple was labeled by Jesus as "my Father's house" (John 2:16) and was the very one he zealously purged of merchants and their wares.

Let that be a lesson; God oftentimes uses means that the world of men consider inappropriate. After all, it was a promiscuous slut who helped Joshua's scouts escape detection in Jericho. You know what became of her? Well; after the campaign, she married a Jewish guy named Salmon, and of them came Boaz, who married Ruth, which led to David, and eventually to the holiest human being this planet has ever hosted: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Son of Man. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

And oh! My favorite is the naughty lady by the well of Samaria who was married five times and shacking up with a guy when she and Jesus met. It was to her that he revealed the nature of the "water" of John 3:5. To this good day, educated Xian theologians professing to be Christ's followers still squabble over the precise nature and purpose of that water; while she got it straight from the horse's mouth.

Ironically, most Catholics are far more influenced in their religious thinking by the Roman Catechism than by the 27 manuscripts Constantine's committee chose for a New Testament. When the average Catholic is introduced to New Testament Christianity for the first time, very often they don't recognize it as New Testament Christianity; and readily dismiss it as Protestant heresy because the New Testament clearly does not harmonize with Rome's Catechism; and in point of fact, the Catechism all too often actually contradicts the Bible; in addition to seriously embellishing it; making Christianity more strict, and more cumbersome, than it really is; just as Judaism's traditions did in Jesus' day.

Below is a book I highly recommend to anybody curious about the origin of the Bible. It's a small book, approximately 5½ x 8½ of 224 pages counting the index and the notes. The font is roughly Courier New size 11 which is large enough to be easily read by most folks.

How We Got The Bible
By Neil R. Lightfoot
ISBN-10: 1-56731-722-7
ISBN-13: 978-1-56731-722-0

Catholicism's so-called "fullness of the deposit of faith" is a big joke because its "full faith" of today is not the full faith Catholicism had at its beginning. Ecumenical Council after Council— a total of 21 in all, from Nicaea 1 in 325 till Vatican 2 in 1962-65 —Rome has been steadily adding more and more decrees and dogmas to its so-called "full deposit" which will only serve to provide the prosecution an ever-growing body of evidence against Catholics in its case against them entering Heaven. Here's why.

§. Rom 14:14-15 . .I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Although that passage primarily regards foods, it lays down an important principle; viz: Be it unto you according to your conscience (cf. Rom 2:12-15).

Since Catholics have chosen Catholicism as their faith; then to them, it is the faith; and it doesn't matter whether Catholicism is right or wrong because the principle of Rom 14:14-15 applies to peoples of both Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, Catholics shall be judged according to their faith of choice; ergo: they shall be punished for their every failing to comply with all that Romanism teaches and stands for— every commandment, every Tradition, and every last thing in the Catechism —just as Jews will be punished for their every failing to comply with all that Judaism teaches and stands for; including every thing in the Old Testament, and every thing in their Traditions

§. Rom 2:5-11 . .For there is going to come a day of judgment when God, the just judge of all the world, will judge all people according to what they have done. He will give eternal life to those who persist in doing what is good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers. But he will pour out his anger and wrath on those who live for themselves, who refuse to obey the truth and practice evil deeds. There will be trouble and calamity for everyone who keeps on sinning— for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all who do good— for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.

The difficulty with obtaining glory, honor, and immortality via Catholicism and/or Judaism is that God demands Jews and Catholics do what is good not just some of the time, nor even most of the time, but they have to persist in doing what is good; viz: they have to be consistent at it (Rom 2:7). I'd venture that none have succeeded in being consistent so far, not even the Pope; so how can any of them reasonably expect to succeed in being consistent from here on in? In point of fact, any Catholic who thinks they have what it takes to be consistent is under a special curse.

Council of Trent, Canon 16: If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

I'll tell you something that annoys me is when Catholics invade the Protestant world trying to convince them Catholicism is The Faith; when not one of those failures at working out their own salvation have yet succeeded in consistently exemplifying even so much as the Beatitudes or the Sermon On The Mount; let alone the rest of the New Testament. They themselves can't even be consistent. Do they really think converts to Rome are somehow going to have any better luck at it than themselves?

§. Matt 23:13-15 . .How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law… Hypocrites! For you won't let others enter the kingdom of Heaven, and you won't go in yourselves. Yes, how terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law… For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn him into twice the child of Hell as you yourselves are.

A false premise like "Rome Has Spoken" renders Catholics vulnerable to scotoma; which, if you've seen The Davinci Code, you know is a subconsciously induced psychological blindness caused by the mind's propensity to disregard concepts that are incongruous with deep seated, preconceived notions.

The Catholic mind typically chooses Rome's testimony over and above God's testimony because one of its deep-seated mental axioms is that their Church cannot possibly be wrong. That's the deadly effects of scotoma; it actually encourages people to ignore the testimony of God as an expert witness and rely rather upon the testimony of men who claim they can't possibly be wrong.

One of my own personal, deep-seated mental axioms is that the New Testament's Jesus cannot possibly be wrong. He is, after all, the lord and master of New Testament Christianity, and as such, I believe he is the final authority in matters related to faith and practice. I do not believe it is wise to turn a deaf ear to the things he says. However, I do believe it is very wise indeed to turn a deaf ear to any, and to all, of the things Rome says that are incongruous with what the New Testament's Jesus says. When you're forced to choose sides; choose wisely.

§. Matt 22:35-38 . .One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.

§. Josh 24:15 . .And if it seem evil unto you to serve Yhvh, choose you this day whom ye will serve . . but as for me and my house, we will serve Yhvh.

§. Acts 4:19-20 . .Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard.

§. Acts 5:29 . . Peter and the apostles answered and said: We must obey God rather than men.

§. Gal 1:10 . . Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

§. 1John 4:1 . .Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

In order to "try" the spirits (whoever and/or whatever those spirits might be in, whether thoughts, prophets, writings, clergy, or laymen) one must first have access to an independent, non proprietary source of truth with which all other instructional materials must comply. That in itself is an impossibility for rank and file pew warmers because they depend entirely upon the integrity of Rome's magisterium for the truth— a magisterium composed of human beings who, in reality, may be under the influence of the very spirits whom Catholics are supposed to try; but have no independent, non proprietary means to do so.

What I'm saying is this: if the magisterium itself is the unwitting pawn of dark beings, then the rank and file are inadvertent puppets of the dark beings through their trust in the integrity of Rome's magisterium; viz: a Catholic is the perfect patsy because Rome has convinced the rank and file that the clergy alone has the truth, and convinced them that, on their own, they cannot find the truth without the clergy's help: a classic catch-22.

In the study of logic, that's called circular reasoning; viz: pointing to Rome's own proprietary teachings to prove that it's right. That kind of evidence is inadmissible in a court of law because it's like dismissing the charges against a defendant simply by virtue of the fact that he says he didn't do it. In other words, Catholics are confident Rome has the true interpretation of The Holy Bible because Rome's teachings say it does. Thus the average pew warmer is a naive child who renders an utterly thoughtless compliance to the string-pulls of an organization which the rank and file have absolutely no way to validate except by taking its own word for it.

Catholics may read the Holy Bible on their own; but must interpret any doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with Rome and with Tradition.

To that rule, the rank and file might be inclined to retort: So what? Well; the consequence of that "so what" attitude is the destruction of conscience and integrity.

A famous social psychology experiment published in Stanley Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience", revealed that people are too easily persuaded to compromise their integrity and suppress their own conscience while under the supervision of a higher authority. The experiment was performed with subjects who were under the impression that they were giving increasingly higher doses of electricity in 15 volt increments, wired to strangers in an adjoining room who answered questions incorrectly. The registered voltage could go as high as 420, and the person receiving them (who was of course just an actor playing a part in the experiment) would let out increasingly agonized cries from the shocks.

Amazingly, the subjects throwing the switch would sometimes break into tears from the stress of knowingly causing a stranger undeserved pain. Others would be sweating, trembling, stuttering, or biting their lips, and some even broke into uncontrollable nervous fits of psychotic laughter like souls gone mad; but would still faithfully continue to administer what they were led to believe was pain and near-causes of death from the electric shocks jolting suffering people in the adjoining room failing to answer questions correctly. And even when the actors protested the shocks because of an existing heart condition, the electricity continued to flow because the switch operators were told they would not be held accountable if somebody should die during the experiment.

When Nazi death camp guards were asked how they could, in all good conscience, justify abusing and killing so many innocent men, women, and children; they simply answered: "You can't blame any of us for that; we were only following orders."

It's beyond belief, but many of those very same German guards were Christians who attended church on Sunday, sang the lovely hymns and partook the Eucharist; then during the week, impaled newborn Jewish infants— thrown out of hospital windows —in midair on their bayonets.

There you have the typical Catholic mentality: "It is not for me to reason why, it's only for me to faithfully comply." Thus many Catholics willingly suppress their conscience, and surrender control of their sensitivities, their reasoning, and their better judgment to the Borg-collective nerve center of a Magisterium like all good little Catholic boys and girls are supposed to do. And if The Magisterium is wrong? Well, so what? Can you really blame the rank and file? After all; they were only doing their duty; and how could God possibly condemn anybody for that?

But it's not going to work that way at the Great White Throne of Rev 20:11-15. Nobody but nobody is going to pass the buck. If an otherwise intelligent pew warmer foolishly chooses to let others do their own thinking for them, then they will perish in a fool's death even if their own personal IQ is 200 or better.

§. Luke 6:39 . .Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?

Although Rome's hierarchy encourages the rank and file to read the Bible on their own; they still, to this day, are discouraged from trying to figure out the Bible on their own. The rank and file must interpret any doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with the Church and with Tradition (CCC 85). That rule is based upon one of Peter's epistles.

§. 2Pet 1:20-21 …Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

§. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture can be understood by private individuals.

That's not what Peter said at all, nor is it even what he implied. Here's a better rendering.

§. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own imagination.

When you look at the language and grammar of both verses of that the passage critically; it's readily seen that what Peter is really talking about is not the understanding of prophecy, but rather; the origin of prophecy.

Prophets wrote the information down just as they got it; and sometimes had no clue as to either the meaning or the application of the prophecies God gave them (e.g. Dan 12:4, 1Pet 1:10-12).

The reason Peter emphasizes the aspect of inspiration is to ensure that his students don't lose sight of the fact that Bible prophecy, as is, didn't originate with the writers themselves: nor did they tamper with it, nor did they edit it, nor did they revise it. Prophetic records exist by the inspiration of God, not from the creative minds of skillful fiction writers like Steven King or C.S. Lewis.

The rite of Confirmation is supposed to endow rank and file Catholics with the Holy Spirit; the very inspirer of the Bible himself. So then, shouldn't they, assisted by the Holy Spirit, be able to hear what The Bible has to say and get something out of it on their own without the hierarchy telling them what they're supposed to be thinking it means?

§. 1John 2:27 ...And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

Teaching isn't limited to the dispersal of facts and figures; which is just simply the process of filling someone's head with information while doing nothing to show them how to apply it.

Bible teachers are a sacred gift (Eph 4:11-15). But no human teacher, no matter how gifted, can show people how to correctly apply the information they received from a Bible teacher. God's spirit reserves the right to that portion of the learning process (cf. 1Cor 2:1-16).

Inspired writers have done all they can to provide the information Christ wants his followers to have. But that is the extent of their abilities. From that point on, Christ's followers are not supposed to depend upon men, but upon God's spirit to show them how to apply the information. This is a supernatural aspect of New Testament Christianity about which most Catholics are totally unaware so they are only too willing to substitute the Magisterium for God's spirit.

OBJECTION : Why should I listen to someone who has no accredited training in classical languages and no formal theological training?

I can only say that it is not wise to write off any Bible teacher for either of those two reasons. Jesus' opponents were far better educated than he was, and neither Jesus, Peter, nor John had any training in classical languages nor formal theological training.

§. John 7:14-15 …Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marveled, saying; How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

§. Acts 4:13 …Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated ignorant men, they marveled

§. 1Cor 1:26-29 …Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world's eyes, or powerful, or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose those who are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important, so that no one can ever boast in the presence of God.

Nobody needs any formal training if they have a reasonable command of their own native tongue, and the reading comprehension of a sixth grader combined with the intuition of the Holy Spirit. Bibles are widely available in almost every major language of the world. The translators have already done the hard part. Now it's up to you to take advantage of their efforts.

OBJECTION : You have no comprehension of what the early fathers of the Church believed and taught; and even if you have read some of their writings, you simply discount them entirely.

Below are listed the only "early church fathers" that we are willing to permit to influence our thinking.

Jesus, John the Baptist, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude.

Any time somebody would like to try their hand at an intelligent rebuttal to our comments: be my guest. But we forewarn them that we will totally disregard any, and all, non biblical, proprietary Catholic dogmas. Our opponents might as well get it in their heads right now that we will only seriously consider rebuttals drawn from the teachings of our own list of early church fathers; not theirs.

OBJECTION : However, it was and still is necessary to reaffirm the fact that it is The Church, rather than individual men, who hold the authority and the right to teach the truth the same as it was during the Old Law with Levite priests.

That statement is thoroughly untrue as the very purpose of one of the benefits of the new covenant is to make every believer a living Bible (Jer 31:31-34, Ezk 36:24-28).

When Catholics use a word like "Church" aren't they actually referring to the church of their own choice; viz: the Roman Catholic Church? And aren't they overlooking the fact that the individuals gifted with the ability to teach are at the discretion— not of a church —but of the Holy Spirit?

§. 1Cor 12:11 …It is the one and only Holy Spirit who distributes these gifts. He alone decides which gift each person should have.

You know who's the most influential teacher in your own sphere of life? It is your own conscience. On many occasions, Jesus' enemies knew in themselves that he was right; but they resisted him anyway because they didn't like him, so they constantly looked for a chicken exit by inventing ways to discredit his teachings. Are you like that?

Note: What I just described in that last paragraph is the unpardonable sin known as blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. There is no forgiveness for people who commit it (Mark 3:22-30).

God granted Jewish rulers the authority to legislate in regards to cases not specifically spelled out in the laws of Old Testament Judaism; and it is a death offense to ignore their decisions (Deut 17:8-13).

However, the rulers were never given carte blanche to add to, embellish, diminish, nor repeal already-existing covenanted Law.

§. 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 26:16-18 . .Yhvh your God commands you this day to follow these decrees and laws; carefully observe them with all your heart and with all your soul. You have declared this day that Yhvh is your God and that you will walk in His ways, that you will keep His decrees, commands and laws, and that you will obey Him.

§. Deut 27:1 . .Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people; Keep all these commands that I give you today.

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

§. Jer 11:3-4 . .Tell them that this is what Yhvh, the God of Israel, says: Cursed is the man who does not obey the terms of this covenant— the terms I commanded your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace. I said: Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God.

§. Mal 4:4 . .Be mindful of the Law of My servant Moses, whom I charged at Horeb with laws and rules for all Israel.

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 write new laws for the religion of Judaism that would actually make the religion of Judaism more strict and more burdensome than it really is. Israel's religious laws were God-given and set in stone; any additional laws Jewish authorities legislate have to be regarded as non-covenanted law, and binding only upon citizens and/or resident aliens who actually live within the jurisdictional boundaries of Eretz Israel.

By that same principle, Jesus gave his top men the authority to police his church (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:15-18) but he did not give them authority to independently add to the religion of New Testament Christianity nor to repeal it, nor to diminish it. Whatever they taught in their preachings, 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 professing Christians, the proprietary 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. Jesus' 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 Jesus 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 Jesus' church with far more effect than Constantine's efforts to unify it. As of mid 2007, there were 1.12 billion Catholics worldwide totally alienated from the rest of Jesus' church via Rome's proprietary catechism, the laws of its Ecumenical Councils, and its collection of Bulls, and encyclicals. The average pew warmer's 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.

Jesus' Jewish opponents weren't pagans. No, the religion that they professed to believe and practice was the very same God-given religion that Christ himself professed to believe and practice; which was Moses' covenanted law.

Their differences of opinion with Jesus came from the fact that Jesus was a fundamentalist, while his opponents were adherents of a rabbinical form of Judaism, which isn't purely Moses' covenanted law, but rather an unholy amalgam of Scripture and Tradition.

While professing to follow the Bible's God; in reality Rome opposes His son just as vehemently as rabbinical Judaism opposed him 2,000 years ago. The rabbis doctored Old Testament Judaism with Tradition, just as Rome has done the very same thing to New Testament Christianity; so that Catholic Christians are no longer fundamentalists like Jesus was; no, now they're traditionalists; just as Jesus' Jewish opponents were.

Jesus' traditionalist opponents didn't claim the fatherhood of another God. No, they claimed that Jesus' God was their Father. Catholic traditionalists don't claim the fatherhood of another God either. No, they too claim that Jesus' God is their Father; yet are no more inclined to abandon their traditions in order to follow Christ than the Jews are inclined to abandon theirs.

OBJECTION : You are so wrong! Jesus wasn't a fundie at all, he was a radical.

Jesus wasn't just filled with the Bible God's spirit; no, he was empowered with His spirit to the point of being over-maxed by It.

§. John 3:34-35 . .For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's spirit is upon him without measure or limit.

An agent of the Bible's God, stated to be empowered with God's spirit without measure or limit, and speaking God's words; is highly unlikely to go off on their own agenda speaking their own words.

§. Gal 5:16 . .But I say, walk in the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.

Webster's defines fundamentalist as: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles; viz: conservative, old liner.

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

§. Jer 11:3-4 . . And say unto them: Thus testifies Yhvh, God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeys not the words of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt

§. Gal 3:10 . .Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

§. Gal 5:3 . .And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

§. Matt 5:17-19 . .Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them. I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved. So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Father in the New Testament is the very same God as the Yhvh of the Old Testament; against whom Jesus never once rebelled; nor broke with His way of doing things.

§. John 8:29 . .And He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please Him.

One of the dumbest objections I ever heard in regards to Jesus' humanity is that he couldn't possibly have had Jewish blood because theirs is sinful blood. So, in order to qualify as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, Jesus had to have sinless blood; viz: God's blood.

According to the Bible; the New Testament's Jesus came into this world as Abraham's seed, not as a divine seed.

§. Matt 1:1 . .The is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

§. Heb 2:16 . .For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Abraham is the father of the Jews, and his genetics can be traced all the way back to Adam, the first man. In point of fact, in order to even qualify as a human being, one must have Adam's blood in their veins.

§. Acts 17:26 . .And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,

If Jesus were to have a "God's blood" in his veins, instead of Adam's blood, then he wouldn't be a valid member of the human race. In fact, he wouldn't even be human at all; but on numerous occasions in the Gospel, Jesus referred to himself as the son of man. The genus of Man is rooted in Adam.

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

§. Gen 5:1-2 . .This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created Man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

You can't be a son of man if you don't have Man's blood; especially if you don't have Adam's blood. The New Testament specifically says that Adam is Jesus' genetic progenitor (Luke 3:38).

So where did Jesus get his human blood? From his mother's side of the family; where else? People keep forgetting that Jesus' mother didn't just pop out of nowhere. She had a human mother and father, and human grandparents, and human great grandparents; ad infinitum. Some believe that men are the gender that makes blood for the babies. Well, my answer is; what about all the men on Mary's side of the family that contributed to her own existence? Did you really think that none of their genes were in her ova?

The value of Jesus' life's blood is not in his genetics anyway. No, it's in the man himself. What really counts is his own personal innocence. Jesus himself was sinless, and that alone is what makes his life's blood so valuable for ransom purposes.

§. 2Cor 5:21 …For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.

I have seen people professing themselves to be Christians claim to believe that the New Testament's Jesus is fully Man, and fully God; but in reality they only believe he is fully God. Roman Catholicism has never believed Jesus is fully Man; no, it believes he is a divine man, not a full man. The failure to believe that Jesus came into the world as a full man is the spirit of anti-Christ

§. 1John 4:2-3 . .By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

§. 2John 1:7 . .For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

So then, any Christian doctrine that genetically disconnects Christ from Abraham and David is not sanctioned by God's spirit because it is the spirit of anti-Christ

OBJECTION : How can you say Jesus was fully a Jewish man? He didn't even have a biological father.

Couldn't that very same logic be applied to Eve? According to the objector's reasoning, Eve wasn't fully a human woman because she didn't have a biological mother, but was formed exclusively from a male's organic tissues. Jesus is simply the opposite. He didn't have an immediate biological father; but was formed exclusively from a female's organic tissues. In reality, Jesus' formation makes more sense because God at least had a male gene pool in Mary's tissues to draw upon, whereas in Eve's case, there had never been a female of the species before she came along.

A serious point worth emphasizing is that it is not quite accurate to say that there were no males involved in Jesus' conception, because Mary herself was the genetic product of many, many normal breeding relationships between men and women— all the way back to David and Bathsheba, Boaz and Ruth, Salmon and Rahab, Judah and Tamar, Jacob and Leah, Isaac and Rebecca, Abraham and Sarah, Shem and Mrs Shem, Noah and Mrs Noah, Seth and Mrs Seth, and Adam and Eve.

So then, there were lots of males in Jesus' genetic pedigree; and his own DNA was doubtless laced with their genes— especially David's and Abraham's. In point of fact, Jesus is specifically stated to be David's seed— not a spiritual seed, but a natural seed —of the flesh.

§. Rom 1:3 . .Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh

Just because Jesus didn't have an end-point biological father doesn't mean he was any less a Jewish man than any other Jewish man because God had lots of Jewish male genes at his disposal in Mary's DNA from which to choose when forming Jesus; so there was no need for The Holy Spirit to "plant a seed" in Mary's uterus since her own natural seed was all that God really needed to do the job. Planting a seed in her uterus would have relegated Mary to the status of a surrogate mother rather than a biological mother; and her firstborn son wouldn't have been her own son at all, but another's.

Pedigree is very important to royalty like the house of David because his throne passes down genetically, and no other way. In point of fact, God clearly, and without ambiguity, said that David was Jesus' father even before Jesus was conceived in the womb of an unmarried, un-laid Jewish girl (Luke 1:32).

Since Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then the only other possible genetic link to David was via his mother and her male kin. Joseph descended from David via Solomon (Matt 1:6) and Mary descended from David via Solomon's brother Nathan (Luke 3:31) so that Mary and Joseph are actually distant cousins.

Normally, the males in Old Testament Judaism decide their children's tribal heritage; as in the case of Ruth's and Boaz's son Obed. But in Mary and Joseph's case, the husband played no role in the conception; so the males on Mary's side of the family became Jesus' genetic progenitors by default, and put him solidly in the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14).

§. 1Cor 15:22 . . For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The Greek word is en (en) which is an ambiguous preposition that denotes either position (in place, time or state) or instrumentality (method)

But I do not know of any English translations in common use that translate 1Cor 15:22 like that; no, not even the WatchTower Society's bible.

The New Living Translation does a good job of bringing out the correct application of Paul's statement.

§. 1Cor 15:22 . . Everyone dies because all of us are related to Adam, the first man. But all who are related to Christ, the other man, will be given new life.

So then the terms "in Adam" and "in Christ" indicate genetic relationships. (I used the biological term genetic to make this a bit easier to grasp.)

So then, everybody on earth is in the family tree of the earthly man Adam, but not everybody on earth is in the family tree of the heavenly man Christ. Everybody gets into the earthly Man's family tree by means of a natural birth. So then, to get into the heavenly Man's family tree, it is necessary to undergo another kind of birth— a supernatural, heavenly kind of birth.

§. John 1:12-14 . . As many as accepted him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

NOTE: the privilege of identifying one's self as a child of God is a restricted right rather than a natural right: and the right is conferred only upon those who have first undergone a supernatural birth.

Supernatural births are not optional; no, they are a must if one is to obtain a place in the heavenly Man's family tree.

§. John 3:3 . . Jesus replied: I assure you, unless you are born from above, you can never see the kingdom of God.

§. John 3:5 . . Jesus replied: The truth is, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.

§. John 3:6-8 . . Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives new life from heaven. So don't be puzzled at my statement that you must be born again.

People who fail to undergo a Spirit birth prior to leaving this life, will have to appear later on at the Great White Throne of Rev 20:11-15 as one of Adam's people rather than Christ's; and afterwards hurled into a reservoir of liquid flame where they'll be deep-fried alive, shrieking, and infected with the worms Jesus spoke of at Mark 9:43-48.

The koiné Greek word for "worms" is skolex (sko'-lakes) which identifies grubs, maggots, and/or earth-worms. The worms, of course, are implied to feed upon the damned just as normal worms in life thrive on an open corpse. A worm that thrives in liquid flame is pretty amazing, but not totally unreasonable. The 4-inch Pompeii worm lives in sea water temperatures of 176 degrees— hot enough to destroy salmonella germs. So I guess if God could create a worm like the Pompeii, it shouldn't be too difficult for Him to create worms that like it even warmer.

Acts 12:21-23 records a death in the line of the Herods caused by skolex of the infectious parasitic type. The biblical record goes right to the bottom line without any details, but according to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17, chapter 6, section 5; that particular Herod didn't die right away as the concise New Testament record suggests; but suffered with the malady for some time.

What the Bible omits is the rather grisly detail that the skolex were in his privy-member (which would no doubt have included the prostate) and caused him a great deal of agony so much so that at times he could hardly walk or conduct state business. In the interests of propriety; I leave it to your imagination as to where the skolex might zero-in on hell's condemned women.

Some people accuse Bible Christianity of being a religion of fear. (chuckle) That's not an accusation; no, that's an understatement.

§. Luke 12:4-5 . . And I say to you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into Hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!

§. Rev 20:15 . . And whosoever was not found recorded in the book of Life was hurled into the lake of fire.

Although I don't recommend Catholicism's interpretation of the New Testament; I highly recommend its current English translation; the New American Bible. You do understand what I mean by an interpretation as opposed to a translation?

Translations just move the words and expressions of one language into the words and expressions of another language. But an interpretation is a whole different animal. An interpretation is a proprietary application of the translation. Members of cult religions— e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons —readily attest that they believe the Bible; when in reality they don't believe the Bible itself, but rather, they believe their church's interpretation of the Bible. This can also be said of rank and file Catholics. Their beliefs too are rooted in their hierarchy's interpretation of the Bible rather than the Bible itself.

During an encounter with a Baptist man back in 1968, I was amazed to learn from him that all Christian Bibles say pretty much the very same things. True, the sayings aren't verbatim duplicates in all Bibles; but that's to be expected when the English language has at its own disposal such a vast storehouse of so many synonyms to work with; and when the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages are themselves sometimes extremely ambiguous. There are ancient Hebraic words that, to this day, nobody really knows what they mean, so translators just take their best shot. However; as long as the original syntax isn't lost in the process, the words selected by translators to translate can be flexible. Let me give you an example.

"And not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation: but grace is of many offences unto justification."

"Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life."

In Rome's current official version, the New American Bible (NAB), those same verses read like this:

"And the gift is not like the result of the one person's sinning. For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation; but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal."

"In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all."

You see how the NAB substituted the word acquittal for the D-R's justification? Although justification and acquittal are two different words; the thought expressed by them is identical. Webster's defines acquittal as: a setting free from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process; i.e. to render, or pronounce, innocent. Viz: Jesus' crucifixion looses sinners from any, and all, criminal charges God holds against them.

§. Rom 3:24-26 . .God, out of kindness, pronounces us not guilty through the ransom that's in Christ Jesus: whom God purposed to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to justify His tolerance of sins in past eras, His self-restraint; and to declare, I say, at this time, His own justification: that He might be shown equitable and right in acquitting those who believe in Jesus.

Therefore, through Jesus' crucifixion, I'm now an acquitted man. In response to my God-granted acquittal; I fully agree with the angel's announcement at Luke 2:10, that Jesus' arrival was certainly good news of great joy! Let me ask you something: if you knew for certain that God has permanently loosed you from any, and all, charges held against you— and/or ever will accumulate against you —wouldn't you be happy about it? I think you would, because the benefits of such an acquittal are immediately apparent: You, my friend, would never again be in danger of eternal suffering.

§. John 5:24 . .Truly, Truly I say unto you; those who heed my message, and rely upon God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already transferred from Death into Life.

An interesting aspect of this particular acquittal is that, according to Rom 5:6-20, it's effects are similar to how Adam's one sin made all men sinners. In the like manner, Jesus' one crucifixion has the potential to make all men innocent. This is a one-time kind of acquittal just as Adam's sin was a one-time kind of condemnation. So that it isn't necessary to keep seeking acquittal after acquittal for your sins. No, you get this special acquittal only just the one time and you don't need to get it again any more than you can expect to get Adam's condemnation again and again. Adam's act, and its consequences, is the model that clarifies Jesus' act and its consequences.

Romans 5:6-20 has probably been responsible for producing more ex Catholics than any other passage in the Bible. Just about every ex I've spoken with, including a priest who actually served and conducted masses in the Vatican itself, came to a realization via Romans 5:6-20.

OBJECTION : That's preposterous! Nobody can get a one-time acquittal. It's necessary to keep coming back to God with timely confessions (1John 1:9-10).

That objector fatally erred by confusing the one-time acquittal obtained through Jesus' crucifixion with the timely washings obtained through confessions. Justification rescues a sinner from the gallows, while confessions remove daily contaminations so they can associate with their rescuer. You can leave this life contaminated with sin and still go to Heaven; but you can't go to Heaven while you're on the gallows because until one obtains an acquittal, the noose stays around their neck. Confessions aren't about justice; no, they're about fellowship.

The model for this can be seen in the dedication process of the Aaronic priests in the Old Testament. They were dedicated one time, and one time only (Ex 29:1-21) but they washed each and every time they reported for duty (Ex 30:18-21) ergo: without first obtaining the acquittal, confessions are a futile pastime. Let me explain.

First, let me state emphatically, that Romans 5:6-20 is the inspired sacred teaching of the Holy Apostle Paul. Thus; as the testimony of God; Paul's teachings are immutable and stand upon God's integrity. So that everything I said previously in regards to that passage is true; every last word. So then, it becomes imperative to harmonize the one-time acquittal Paul discusses in his epistle of Romans with the washings John discusses in the epistle of 1John.

The one-time acquittal available by means of Christ's crucifixion is a criminal justice procedure intended only for condemned sinners on their way to Hell. The washings obtainable by means of confessions— although premised upon Jesus' crucifixion (1John 2:2) —aren't available to condemned sinners on their way to Hell; and wouldn't do them any good anyway while they remain condemned. No, the washings obtained by means of confessions in 1John 1:9-10 serve a different purpose and are a sacred privilege reserved only for current members of God's family (1John 2:1-2, 1John 3:1-2) :it is not a privilege granted to outsiders.

The reason, is that confessions are like the already-dedicated Aaronic priests' daily washings in that they cleanse the family of God so they can associate with God.

It may seem odd, but it is entirely possible for a rescued sinner to be on their way to Heaven while 100% out of fellowship with God the entire distance because the acquittal is a gratuity rather than a wage or a meritorious service award. (Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7)

§. 1John 1:5-10 . .This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

Note that John said if WE confess OUR sins He is faithful and just to forgive US OUR sins and to cleanse US from all unrighteousness (1John 1:9). The pronouns we, us, and our, don't refer to John's fellow men; nor to any old rank and file pew warmer who happens to pick up a Bible. No; within the context of the epistle of 1John, those pronouns antecedent the author's fellow believers— his siblings in God's home —not to outsiders. And according to 1John 5:9-13, all of the author's siblings possess eternal life; so that any Christian claiming to be a member of God's family while not possessing eternal life, is an outsider: a condemned sinner on their way to Hell.

Outsiders— e.g. Christians who don't have eternal life —desperately need an acquittal above all else: they're condemned sinners who need to be rescued from the gallows and given safety and security in God's home. Paul's acquittal accomplishes that very purpose. This very special acquittal acquits the sinner himself, which is far more important than just simply absolving his daily sins. After a condemned sinner has been fully acquitted and transferred into God's home (Col 1:13-14) from then on, any, and all sins they commit are no longer criminal matters; no, au contraire, those sins are family matters— sort of like the naughtiness of a child in the home —which is a whole lot better arrangement; wouldn't you agree?

§. Heb 10:11 . .Day after day every Levitical priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

§. 1John 5:9-13 ...We accept human testimony, but God's testimony carries more weight because it is the testimony of God, which He has given about His son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in himself. Anyone who does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not 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. Whoever has The Son has the life; whoever who does not have the life, does not have God's son. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

I don't think 1John 5:9-13 needs any interpretation. Bible students may obtain the following information from it just by a simple cursory reading.

2) To deny the validity of verses 11-12 is to insinuate that God is a person of low moral integrity who cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

4) Those who don't currently possess eternal life; currently don't possess Christ

5) John's first epistle was written to believers who currently possess eternal life.

Since no conscientious Catholic would ever claim that they currently possess eternal life; then the obvious ramifications of 1John 5:9-13 is that the overwhelming majority of Catholics are Christless— it's as simple as that; and according to Paul; to be Christless, is to be fake sheep.

§. Rom 8:9 …if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

The very first place in the whole Bible where the word Sabbath appears is Ex 16:23. The Hebrew word is shabbath (shab-bawth'); which means: intermission.

Years ago, when I went to matinees at the movies as a kid in the early 1950's, we weren't sold a ticket to just one movie like they do today; no, the ticket was for two— an A movie and a B movie; including cartoons, a newsreel, and an episode of Flash Gordon. The second movie wasn't shown immediately following the end of the first but typically included an intermission which gave you time to utilize the restrooms and/or get something from the snack bar before the second movie started. Intermissions also broke up the tedium of unusually long movies like Ben Hur. Comfort and convenience are secondary to profits today. There are no more intermissions; nor are there any more B movies, cartoons, newsreels, and Flash Gordons.

The Sabbath intermission was never a holy day of obligation in the garden of Eden, nor was it a holy day of obligation up to the Flood; nor was it a holy day of obligation after the Flood in either Abraham's, Isaac's, or Jacob's day; nor was it a holy day of obligation at any time during the people of Israel's sojourn in the land of Egypt up to the time of their liberation under the leadership of Moses and Aaron.

The Sabbath is specifically an arrangement between Yhvh and His post-Egypt people.

§. Ex 31:13-14 . . Speak to the children of Israel, saying; You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am Yhvh who sanctifies you. Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you.

Yes, the sabbath is holy to the Jews, but not to Gentiles; except for those whose home is within the borders of the geographical land of the State of Israel.

§. Ex 12:49 . .The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.

§. Lev 24:22 . .There shall be one standard for you: it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am Yhvh your God.

New Testament Christians are not required to keep the traditional seventh-day Sabbath (Rom 7:1-6, Col 2:16) In point of fact, if a professing Christian attempts to earn salvation points with God by keeping the so-called ten commandments, or any of the rest of God's commandments, they are in serious jeopardy.

§. Gal 2:21 . .I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the commandments, then Christ died needlessly.

§. Gal 3:10-11 …For as many as are of the works of the commandments are under a curse; for it is written; Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the books of The Law to perform them. That no one is innocent by the commandments before God is evident; for; "The righteous man shall life by his faith."

§. Gal 3:21-22 . .For if a commandment had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on commandments. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

§. Gal 3:24-27 . .The commandments served as an escort to lead us to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of an escort. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

§. Gal 5:3-5 . .You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be made righteous by the commandments; you have fallen from grace.

Grace can be defined as the kindness and generosity of God with no strings attached, and nothing expected in return. Graciousness is a spirit that we all display at one time or another, and it's a spirit that we all benefit from. It shows itself often out in public like when we hold the door open for strangers, pick up an item someone dropped, or let someone blend in ahead of us in heavy traffic. We do nice things for people not because we owe them anything, nor even because they deserve it. In fact they might be total strangers, and totally undeserving. But we're often kind towards others simply because we just want to do something nice for somebody. That's the spirit of altruism; viz: the spirit of charity.

Heaven can't be obtained by keeping the commandments because absolute justice demands absolute compliance in order to avoid prosecution (Rom 2:6-11). So then, to get around His own Law's strict demands, God has made Heaven available to anyone, and to everyone, via belief and trust that Jesus' crucifixion is an adequate ransom to rescue people's souls from the wrath of the commandments (John 3:14-18).

It's much easier to be a man of faith then it is to be a man of Law; so easy in fact that anyone can do it; so that nobody has to go to Hell if they don't really want to. Unfortunately, Catholicism annuls the kindness and generosity of God because Catholicism's plan of salvation is essentially a merit system based upon performance: a mixture of works and faith— which is an exceedingly lethal combination that puts the kindness and generosity of God completely out of reach; and thus leaves God no alternative but to enforce His commandments to their fullest extent.

§. Deut 27:26 . .Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of This Law by carrying them out.

That curse is not an idle threat. It's already a reality in everyone's life who has failed to be in 100% compliance with God's commandments.

Every professing Christian who believes that obedience to commandments is a must in order to obtain the grace of God, is already damned even as we speak; and under a special Apostolic curse.

§. Gal 1:3-9 . .Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

. . I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

§. Acts 15:4-11 . .When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying; "It is necessary to ....direct them to observe the Law of Moses."

. . The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them; "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

. . Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are spared through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

Catholic Christians who insist that it is necessary to observe the Sabbath in order to obtain the grace of God and escape Hell and eternal suffering, are actually opposing the very man whom they claim as Rome's first church father. Isn't that amazing!?

OBJECTION : Then why did God sanctify the seventh day if it wasn't important?

It's not quite true to say the seventh day wasn't important. It was, and it still is, important to everybody under the jurisdiction of Moses' covenanted Law. However, to observe it like Jews observe it, is sin for a Christian. There is a Sabbath rest for Christians, but it's not the Mosaic one.

There are basically two versions of the Gospel out and about. One demands obedience to commandments and the performance of good works. I've labeled that kind of gospel: works-leavened. Those kinds of gospels are in violation of Christian-Sabbath principles; here's how.

Heb 3:1-4:11 focuses upon the first generation of Jews whom Moses helped rescue from Egyptian slavery in order to enter the land God promised their ancestors. But they didn't enter; and why didn't they? Because they failed to commit themselves to God's hands.

That generation didn't trust God to give them the victory. No, they lost sight of the mighty powers that God had only just recently demonstrated while saving them from Egypt. They saw only their own inadequate capabilities; and truly, their own capabilities were inadequate. So how does this apply to works-leavened gospels?

When professing Christians believe it's possible to go to Hell in spite of being under the care and protection of Jesus' and his Father's hands, then they are practicing the very same kind of unbelief as that first generation of Jews. They are failing to fully commit themselves to the competency of Jesus and his Father as guardians of the sheep.

§. John 10:28-30 …And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anything snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all things; and nothing is able to snatch them out of my Father's hand.

Among professing Christians, those of us who fully trust the competency of Jesus and his Father as guardians of the sheep, put absolutely no trust in our own capabilities. We soundly reject any and all works-leavened gospels because to accept them would be casting a vote of no-confidence in Jesus' and his Father's competency as good shepherds. We believe that they can be trusted to see the sheep through in spite of attacks by predators as well as falls into sin brought upon themselves by their own stupidity.

§. Heb 4:8-12 …There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his own works as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of unbelief.

I don't think most professing Christians even know what grace is. I suspect that most are under the impression that grace is somehow a quantifiable substance like butter and gasoline; but in regards to God, grace is an abstract noun that expresses qualities apart from substance.

Although there are several aspects to grace, I think the word "altruism" best describes it. Webster's defines altruism as: an unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others. In other words, the spirit of altruism manifests itself when people do something nice for others for no other reason nor motive than that they just simply want to be helpful.

The New Testament Greek word for *grace is charis (khar'-ece); which means: graciousness. Webster's defines *graciousness as: kind, courteous, inclined to good will, generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.

Affable implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to conversation or requests or proposals

Generous is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous, kindly, and liberal in giving

Charitable means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz: benevolent, tolerant, and lenient.

Altruistic means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others; viz: a desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels good to do so.

Tactful indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain good relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary conflict.

The Old Testament Hebrew word for "grace" is chen (khane); and means the same as charis (e.g. Gen 6:8).

When you put all those lovely attributes together, you get a pretty good picture of the bright side of the Bible God's personality. A gracious personality is the total opposite of a pernicious nature. A gracious person is mild, rather than aggressive, combative, confrontational, defensive, competitive, assertive, thin skinned, dominating, and self-centered.

In many Christian minds, it is truly believed that a sinner's salvation rests upon the grace of God; but in most minds that is nothing in the world but a mental spin to mask their true belief that it is by the grace of God that they now have a chance to earn their salvation, where before, they had no chance to earn it. So when you strip away the spin, you're right back to the reality that the plans of salvation enjoying the widest acceptance are essentially merit systems based upon personal performance rather than upon the kindness and generosity of God's altruistic nature.

Some Xians construe Php 2:12 to insist that salvation is a merit award based upon performance. However, for those of us who currently possess eternal life; the New Testament actually reveals that rescue from the wrath of God is a gratuity; which is a gift with no strings attached and nothing expected in return.

§. Eph 2:8-10 …God spared us by His grace when we believed. And we can't take credit for this; it's a gratuity from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.

§. Titus 3:5 …Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy He spared us

§. John 3:16-18 …For God so cared for the world that he donated His one and only child, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God didn't send His child into the world to condemn the world, but rather, to spare the world through him.

Although God is now in a position to spare the whole world; He won't because He has decreed that only those of the world who listen to His testimony, and believe Jesus' crucifixion actually works to ransom people from the wrath of God, qualify to take advantage of it.

§. Mark 16:15-17 ...He said to them; Go into all the world and preach the gospel everywhere to everyone. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned.

§. Gen 6:5-8 . .Then Yhvh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And Yhvh regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So Yhvh said; I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I regret making them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of Yhvh.

This is the very first instance of grace in the Bible. The Hebrew word is chen (khane) and means: graciousness. The important thing in Gen 6:8 is that Yhvh didn't find chen in Noah's eyes; no, just the opposite— Noah found chen in Yhvh's eyes; but what does that mean?

You know, the human face is very expressive. You can tell in an instant whether somebody is going to treat you nicely, and you can also tell if they are going to be difficult. Sometimes people look at you through eyes narrowed and squinted so tightly that you can't even see their pupils; and even if you do, they look like little chips of black flint. I think that's called knives. Other times, when people are in a rage, they glare at you with a look that can only be described as a passionate desire to rip your head off with their bare hands and cook it on the stove. And then there's the look of indifference; a blank, disconnected expression that tells you a person wishes you would just go away and stop bothering them. Those expressions (and more we could describe) are definitely not eyes of grace.

But when Noah looked at Yhvh's face; he could tell instantly that Yhvh was disposed to be helpful.

When the Dead stand before Christ at the Great White Throne (Rev 20:11-15) each in their turn; and look into his eyes, they are not going to see the face of a friend nor of someone disposed to be helpful; no, they are going to see a look on Jesus' face that will chill them to the bone as they instantly realize that the sweet little sugar-coated momma's boy they were led to believe wouldn't swat a fly is now on the very brink of casting them alive and head-long into a reservoir of flaming liquid; and not with an attitude of judicial indifference, but with an attitude of extreme prejudice.

§. Luke 4:18-19 . .The Spirit of The Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent me to heal the broken-hearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind; to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of The Lord.

When Jesus quoted that passage from Isa 61:1-2, he left out the portion that didn't pertain to his first visit. Here's the part that pertains to his return.

§. Gen 18:1-5 …Yhvh appeared again to Abraham while he was camped near the oak grove belonging to Mamre.

. .One day about noon, as Abraham was sitting at the entrance to his tent, he suddenly noticed three men standing nearby. He got up and hurried to meet them, welcoming them by bowing low to the ground. "My lord," he said, "if I have found grace in your sight, stop here for a while. Rest in the shade of this tree while my servants get some water to wash your feet. Let me prepare some food to refresh you. Please stay awhile before continuing on your journey.

The phrase; "found grace in your sight" seems to have been a common colloquialism in the Old Testament. It's even in the Proverbs.

§. Prov 3:3-4 …Let not mercy and truth forsake you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart; and by them find favor in the sight of God and man.

The Old Testament Hebrew word for *favor in that verse is chen (khane); which is often translated: grace.

§. Luke 2:52 …And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor in the sight of God and men.

The New Testament Greek word for *favor in that verse is charis (khar'-ece); which is often translated: grace.

So then, it becomes pretty clear to me what Abraham meant when he said "My lord, if I have found grace in your sight". He was saying; "If you are here at my home for a peaceable reason, then let me be your host."

Actually, Abraham himself was a very gracious man. At first, he didn't know that the men before him were God because he used the generic term for lord to address them, which is 'adown (aw-done'). Later, after realizing who they really were, he addressed them as 'Adonay (ad-o-noy') in verse 27; which is an Old Testament name used of God only; and no one else.

So then, some of the components of grace— cordiality, courtesy, good will, generosity, affableness, sociable-ness, and tactfulness —were very evident in all of Abraham's social contacts.

It's typical that most people are no doubt willing to be gracious to God; but unfortunately inclined to abuse their fellow men. But not Abraham; no, he was even-Stephen all the way around.

§. Jas 3:9-11 …With the tongue we bless our Lord and Father, and with the same tongue we curse men, who were made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth comes blessing and cursing. My brethren, this should not be.

§. Gen 19:19-22 …Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thine eyes, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.

…And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken. Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar (which means: small).

What exactly was the grace that Lot found in God's eyes? Well …this is the same thing I discussed in grace as per Noah. Although Lot chose a poor environment to raise his family, he was a righteous man and God was sympathetic towards Lot's predicament, and didn't want to see him go down with his neighbors.

§. 2Pet 2:6-10 …if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by incinerating them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the unGodly; and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy customs of an unrighteous society (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the immoral deeds he saw and heard) —if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue Godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.

If any of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had looked into God's eyes, they would not have seen the slightest bit of sympathy whatsoever; as God was fully determined to incinerate them and their towns to a man, women, child, toddler, baby, handicapped folk, senior citizen; and everybody's pets, puppies, parakeets, kittens, and livestock. Though God was disposed to spare Lot, He was not disposed to spare Lot's neighbors; and God does not apologize for the disparity; but rather, points to that particular holocaust as a taste of things to be expected.

§. Jude 1:6-7 . .Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

§. Gen 30:25-28 …And it came to pass, when Rachel had borne Joseph, that Jacob said to Laban; Send me away, that I may go to my own place and to my country. Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, and let me go; for you know my service which I have done for you. And Laban said to him; If I have found grace in your eyes, stay here, for I have learned by experience that Yhvh has blessed me for your sake.

Actually, at this point in their association, I can just about guarantee that Laban was finding like zero grace in Jacob's eyes because his uncle had sorely mistreated him the whole time he worked on his ranch; beginning with the dastardly bride-swap stunt Laban pulled on Jacob's wedding night. Exactly how Laban expected Jacob to ever trust him again after that, I just don't know.

But some individuals really do have the colloquial "brass cajones" to think that people should "get over it" no matter what they've done: you know; let bygones be bygones, bury the hatchet, turn the other cheek, let's focus on the things upon which we agree— and all that sort of thing? Well; I think that's exactly what that shrewd old devil was up to.

After 14 years on his ranch, Laban knew Jacob well enough to know that he was a man of character and integrity who didn't let personal feelings overrule his better judgment. (Actually, other than the trick he and his mom pulled on Isaac, there isn't much sin in the Bible's record of Jacob's life). And Jacob was a conscientious employee too; that much about him was very valuable to an opportunist like uncle Laban. So then, Mr.Laban fully intended to continue taking advantage of what he himself felt were exploitable character weaknesses.

God has exploitable character weaknesses too; and it can be very tempting to take advantage of them.

You see, once someone has been fully ransomed from the wrath of God (John 3:14-17, Rom 5:6-11) , undergone a second birth (John 3:3-8), paid for their sins via proxy participation in Jesus' execution (Rom 6:3-11), adopted into God's own home (Eph 1:4-5, Rom 8:15-16), and owner's marked by God's own Spirit (Eph 1:13-14); they pretty much have a license to steal after that. However, God doesn't rescue sinners from retribution to free them up for a life of sinning at will; but rather, to take up a life of righteousness at will.

§. Rom 6:1-2 …What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin continue to live in it?

§. Rom 12:1-2 …I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

§. Gal 5:13 …Brethren, you have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh

§. Eph 2:10 …For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God decreed beforehand that we should walk in them.

NOTE: Those four passages do not apply to just any old rank and file pew warmer, nor do they apply to just any old Jack and Jill who happens to be looking in; no, no, no. They apply only to believers fully ransomed from the wrath of God, undergone a second birth, paid for their sins via proxy participation in Christ's crucifixion, adopted into God's own home, and owner's marked with God's own Spirit.

OBJECTION : According to Paul, exemplary behavior is necessary in order to merit the kingdom; e.g. Gal 5:19-21.

Here's a good rule of thumb that has kept me from making a lot of silly errors over the years: Never, ever, use something from an epistle to invalidate The Lord's testimony in the Gospels; nor ever use the epistle authors' own words to contradict themselves.

The objector erred by assuming that Paul instructed the saved-by-the-grace-of-God Galatian believers that they would go to Hell if they walked in the flesh. But an interpretation like that invalidates the doctrine of salvation by the grace of God; which Paul had just gone to great lengths defending in the previous 4½ chapters of Galatians. And if you assumed that the grace of God has to be earned, then you have not only managed to brush aside those 4½ chapters, but also succeeded in reducing the grace of God to the level of a wage rather than that of a gratuity motivated by the spirit of altruism. Let's review what Jesus said in the Gospels and then we'll know better how to interpret what Paul says in his epistles.

§. John 3:14-19 . .And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness [Num 20:5-9] so I, the Son of Man, must be lifted up on a pole, so that everyone who believes in me will have eternal life. For God so cared for the world that he donated His only son, so that everyone who trusts him will not perish but have eternal life. God did not send His son into the world to condemn it, but to rescue it. There is no judgment awaiting those who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already been judged for not believing in God's one and only son.

According to Christ's testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to the plan of salvation, everybody trusting in his crucifixion as an adequate ransom to rescue their souls from the wrath of God, come in for several immutable benefits, but I just want to list four; 1) there is no judgment awaiting those who trust him, 2) believers will not perish but have eternal life, 3) they will never be condemned for their sins, and 4) they have already transferred from Death into Life.

Now then, since Christ is the lord and master of New Testament Christianity, it is improper for somebody to attempt to use an underling's writings to refute The Master's first-person teachings. The proper thing to do is find out how an underling's writings harmonize with The Master's first-person teachings so that there's no conflict nor schism in the New Testament.

Although the outside world is definitely going to Hell for walking in the flesh, absolutely no true believer is because according to Christ's testimony, true believers have no condemnation awaiting them, they will not perish but have eternal life, and they will never be condemned for their sins. So then, all in the world Paul taught in Gal 5:21 is that walking in the flesh in inappropriate for God's saved-by-the-grace-of-God people because that's the way the damned live, therefore it is not the way that ransomed sinners should continue to live (cf. Gen 17:1, John 15:1-8, Rom 6:1-2, Rom 12:1-2, 1Pet 2:9-11, 1Pet 4:1-3).

OBJECTION : According to Gal 1:11-12, Paul got his own gospel message directly from Jesus; he didn't make it up. So that although he's an underling, Paul's testimony should be received just as if it were The Lord himself speaking.

It only stands to reason that the Lord and Master of New Testament Christianity would never introduce schism in his own church by giving an underling a gospel message that contradicted His own. The proper way to interpret the underling, is to first fully accept what his Master taught in the four Gospels. For that objector to jump ahead of The Master, and pick out something from an underling's epistles in an effort to refute The Master's teachings, is out of order. Accept The Master's teachings first; then the epistles will be much easier to understand correctly.

OBJECTION : What about James? Didn't he, another of Jesus' inspired underlings, clearly teach that salvation is obtained by works and faith together?

No; a dead faith is not an absent faith; it's simply inactive. Believers are expected to put their beliefs into practice.

§. John 15:16 . .You didn't choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce fruit

§. Rom 6:1-3 . .Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more kindness and forgiveness? Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it?

§. Rom 12:1-2 . .Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God— which is your reasonable service. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is— his good, pleasing and perfect will.

For an explanation that in no way contradicts either Jesus' teachings in the Gospels, nor Paul's teachings in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians; click the link below.

§. Jas 2:20 . .You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is dead?

§. Jas 2:21-22 . .Was not our ancestor Abraham innocent for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

Abraham was innocent in what he did with Isaac because his was an act of obedience. Had Abraham attempted to offer Isaac as a human sacrifice independent of God's oversight, he would have been guilty of attempting a ritual murder. Obedience made all the difference in the merit of his actions.

§. Jas 2:23-24 . .And the scripture was fulfilled that says; Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness; and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is right with God by what he does and not by faith alone.

A faithful person's righteous acts please God; but they do not count towards salvation.

§. Titus 3:5 . .He saved us, not on the basis of our righteous deeds, but according to His mercy

That is very important to remember when reading James. In this epistle, the author is talking about a saved person's actions rather than an unsaved person's actions. Abraham was already righteous, and already God's friend many years prior to the incident on the mountain. The test on the mountain was not to see if Abraham deserved to go to Heaven, but rather, to demonstrate that he deserved to be called God's friend.

Supposing Abraham had put his foot down and refused to kill Isaac? Would he have gone to Hell? No, because, although disobedience can invalidate the righteousness of works (Ezk 18:24) disobedience can never invalidate the righteousness of faith.

§. Rom 4:1-5 . .What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was pronounced righteous by works, he had something to boast about; but not before God. What does the Scripture say? Abraham "believed" God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gratuity, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who acquits the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

So then, though one's faith cannot be seen in their behavior; that does not make them eo ipso unrighteous; no, their faith, though it not be in shoe leather, still has merit; in point of fact, that inactive faith still has enough merit to get them into Heaven even if they never perform one single righteous act their entire lives.

§. John 5:24 . .Truly, Truly I say unto 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.

It's commonly supposed that a bleeding-heart Jesus is up in Heaven, down on his face before God whining and begging with hot tears for the salvation of the world. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The only people in this world that the New Testament's Jesus prays for are the ones God entrusted to his care. The rest are outsiders— cursed, estranged from God; and on their own.

I seriously doubt that the pronouns them and they of "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" refer to Jesus' executioners. While true that Christ died for his executioners (Rom 5:6-11) that's as far as it goes because in reality, he only prays for believers.

§. John 17:20-21 . . My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

Although the New Testament's Jesus died for the whole world, he doesn't pray for the whole world. No; he only prays for those whom God has given him; viz: for believers, and only for believers.

§. John 17:8-9 . . For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

§. John 17:20-21 . . My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

§. 1John 2:1 . . My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if any do sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense— Jesus Christ, the Righteous one.

I strongly advise that you do some homework first; viz: make very sure you know what you're getting yourself into before taking the plunge.

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

That paragraph acknowledges everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting a religion of their own personal choice. However, be aware that once you join The Catholic Church, you will be relinquishing the right, and the freedom, to do your own spiritual thinking, and the right to make your own spiritual decisions. You will be placed under the jurisdiction of Rome, which is a monarchal form of theocratic government; and you will be expected to comply with every rule in the Catechism, every Tradition, every Bull, and every ruling of Rome's Church Councils including Nicaea 1 & 2, Constantinople 1 & 2 & 3, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5, Lyons 1 & 2, Vienne, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican 1 & 2.

In addition, you will not be permitted to either interpret, or apply, the Holy Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight.

CCC 85 . .The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Rome will have the final say in all matters pertaining to your faith and practices.

§. 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.

Therefore, refusal to comply with Rome's directions and decisions is rebellion against the Christ of Catholicism, and merits punishment; even to the extent of excommunication.

§. Matt 18:17 . .If he refuses to listen even to the Church, treat him as you would a pagan or one who collaborates with the enemy.

§. 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.

§. Heb 13:17 . .Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Consider yourself Mirandized. Do you understand the duties and obligations of a Roman Catholic as I have explained them to you?

Rome's plan of salvation is essentially a merit system based upon performance: a blended system of faith and works. So then, even if you muster all the faith necessary to move mountains, but fail to turn in a consistent performance of works, charity, and piety; you will still be in grave danger of eternal suffering for disobeying God's commandments.

Failure to comply with His commandments forces God to penalize Catholics for disobedience since Rome has made obedience to commandments essential to obtaining salvation rather than depending solely upon Jesus' crucifixion. Rome actually diverts people away from Christ.

§. Gal 2:21 . .I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the commandments, then Christ died needlessly.

§. Gal 3:10-11 . .For as many as are of the works of the commandments are under a curse; for it is written; Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the books of The Law to perform them. That no one is innocent by the commandments before God is evident; for fhe righteous man shall life by his faith.

§. Gal 3:23-27 . .The commandments served as an escort to lead us to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of an escort. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

§. Gal 5:3-5 . .You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be made righteous by the commandments; you have fallen from grace.

§. Rom 3:20-24 . .Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing commandments . . But now a righteousness from God, apart from commandments, has been made known . . This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are pronounced innocent free of charge by his kindness and generosity through the ransom that came by Christ Jesus.

When you trim off all the superfluous glitter— e.g. Popes, Vatican City, Ste. Peter's Basilica, the hierarchy, robes, special garments, miters, rituals, rites, confessions, dogma, sacraments, catechism, saints, stations of the cross, the Eucharist, Mother Teresa, sculptures, frescoes, stained glass, crucifixes, virgin sightings, rosaries, rote prayers, candles, ornate churches and cathedrals, convents, seminaries, fasts, holy days of obligation, ceremonies, novenas, John the Baptist's arm, nails and splinters from the cross, etc, etc, etc —here's what's left; here is the gist of Roman Catholicism's plan of salvation.

§. Mark 10:17-21 . .And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him; Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him . .Thou knowest the commandments, do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, defraud not, honor thy father and mother.

OBJECTION : You just quoted the Lord and Master of New Testament Christianity! Are you insinuating he gave people bad advice?

No, Jesus' counseling is valid. The running man wanted to know what he had to do in order to obtain eternal life; and Jesus told him. If the man had followed up with another question that went like this: What happens if I fail to obey the commandments consistently? Then Jesus' next reply would have been this:

Consistence is the key to obtaining eternal life via commandments. Webster's defines consistent as: 1) possessing firmness or coherence, 2) marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity; viz: free from variation or contradiction, and 3) showing steady conformity to character, profession, belief, or custom.

Let's say you are normally a conscientious driver— always coming to a complete stop at STOP signs, never J-walking, never making an illegal U-turn, always within the speed limit, always using your turn signals, and that sort of thing. But one day while gabbing on a cell phone with your wife, you absent-mindedly run a red light. Are you consistently a good driver? No. You broke the law and a cop is justified in writing you a ticket for running a red light, and the violation goes on your driving record.

You see consistence doesn't mean you obey the law some of the time, nor even most of the time. Consistence means you obey the law all the time. Lack of consistence results in a ticket: viz: the curse of Deut 27:26.

That's exactly why so many Catholics will never escape. It's because they will never measure up to their own religion's plan of salvation which is essentially a merit system based upon performance. Thousands of Catholics, no, millions, right now, today, don't measure up to their own religion's teachings— they have yet to even exemplify the Beatitudes let alone the remainder of the Sermon on the mount— and even if you were to grant them another 59 years to work it out, they would still fail to measure up. You know why? Because they cannot be God; and according to the Lord and Master of New Testament Christianity; God-likeness is exactly what Catholics must produce in order to inherit eternal life via a merit system based upon compliance with commandments.

A common New Testament Greek word for save is sozo (sode'-zo); which means: to rescue and/or protect.

Rescuing is what the Coast Guard does when boats capsize. Rescuing is what Firemen do when people are trapped inside burning buildings. Rescuing is what mountaineer teams do when climbers are in trouble. Rescuing is what EMT paramedics do when someone needs to get to a hospital in a hurry; and kept alive till they arrive. Rescuing is what surgeons do when someone needs an organ transplant. I could go on and on giving you example of rescuer after rescuer; but I think you get the idea. The New Testament's Jesus rescues people from the wrath of God— people who fully deserve Hell, and definitely in line to go there.

You see, if people could comply with Jesus' teachings at Mark 10:17-21 they would be in no need of a rescue. That's because they would be in no danger of the curse of Deut 27:26. No, they'd be perfectly safe. But everybody needs a rescue because everybody is failing to consistently comply with the commandments; ergo: everybody is in grave danger (Rom 2:6-16, Rom 3:10-20).

But praise, and thank, and kiss the Bible God's feet and toes that Jesus' Father devised a contingency— an honest to gosh bail-out resulting in a totally gratuitous, no strings attached, free of charge, fail-safe, sin-proof, God-proof, commandment-proof, guaranteed safe passage to the other side, and full-time protection from retribution that relieved me of any obligation whatsoever to comply with Mark 10:17-21.

§. Rom 8:3-4 . .For what the commandments could not do, in that they were weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the commandments might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after The Spirit.

§. Gal 2:15-16 . .We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that no man is righteous by commandments, but rather by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be made righteous by the faith of Christ, rather than by commandments: for by the commandments shall no flesh be righteous.

§. 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 . .For if a commandment had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by commandments.

§. Gal 5:3-4 . .You who are trying to be righteous with God via commandments have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from His graciousness.

§. Eph 1:13-14 . . In him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession

What that statement alludes to is the Catholic sacrament of Confirmation. According to the Catechism— CCC. 1317 —the seal is an imprinted spiritual mark or indelible character on the believer's soul. However, according to the syntax of the passage above, the seal isn't a mark or a character at all, but rather, it's a person: the promised Holy Spirit.

The koiné Greek word for "guarantee" is arrhabon (ar-hrab-ohn') which means: a pledge; which Webster's defines as: (1) security for a debt or other obligation, and (2) something given as security for the performance of an act.

An excellent example of a pledge is located at Gen 38:15-18. Judah left his staff and his signet with a women whom he assumed to be a temple prostitute to guarantee his promise to pay her with an animal from his flocks. According to the rules of a pledge, had Judah reneged on his promise, the woman would have legal right to keep his personal items in lieu of the animal. This is exactly how quite a few pawn shops conduct their short-term loan business even to this day.

So then, since the Holy Spirit is God's pledge in Eph 1:13-14; then, according to the principles underlying pledges, if God should renege on His promise to spare people who hear and believe the gospel, then He has to forfeit His own Spirit, and the believer gets to keep it, regardless of their eternal destiny.

Since it would be very embarrassing for God to renege, and even more embarrassing to send somebody to hell accompanied by His Spirit, I'm sure you can see right off that once God commits; He will certainly follow through.

§. Php 1:6 . . Being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

§. 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.

Some folk are apparently of the opinion that the Bible's God has a problem with integrity. Not me. I believe that God's pledge, like His word, is His bond; viz: I have every right to detain God's Spirit in custody until God makes good on His promise to pull me through to safety.

Another application of the arrhabon pledge is commonly seen in real estate transactions.

As anybody who's ever bought property knows, earnest money isn't a down payment; no, far from it. Although it may be applied towards the purchase price of property, earnest money itself serves a specific purpose of its own in the real estate business. In some quarters; this is also called good faith money.

When the contract, and all the other necessary documents are submitted to Escrow, the buyer is required to also submit a token amount of the purchase price. It's usually a relatively small number of dollars compared to the full price of the property. I think ours was just $1,000 back in 1988 on a $74,000 home. When the buyer follows through on their intent to purchase the property, the good faith money (minus some Escrow fees of course) goes towards the purchase. However, if the buyer loses interest in the property and decides to renege, then they forfeit the good faith money. No doubt that's done to discourage half-hearted buyers from fiddling around with other people's time and money.

So then, since God's Spirit is the Escrow deposit depicted in Eph 1:13-14; then, according to the principles underlying good faith deposits, if God should renege on His promise to spare people who hear and believe the gospel, then God has to forfeit His own Spirit, and the believer gets to keep it, regardless of their eternal destiny.

There are people who actually believe the Bible's God is capable of reneging on His promises. A belief of that nature of course eo ipso insinuates that the Bible's God is a person of questionable integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth. Their lack of confidence in His integrity also casts a vote of no confidence in the Lord's competence as a good shepherd.

§. 1Pet 3:15 . .Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

§. Rom 8:23-25 . .We ourselves, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons: the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

There's varieties of hope. One is a wishing kind of hope. It doesn't know what's coming; so it prays for the best, while in the back of its mind; dreads the worst. This could be labeled a "hope-so" kind of hope. That is NOT the kind of hope spoken of in either 1Pet 3:15 or Rom 8:23-28.

The koiné Greek word for hope in those passages is elpis (el-pece') which means to anticipate; which Webster's defines as: to look forward to as certain; viz: expect.

The plan of salvation includes not only rescue from the wrath of God, but also rescue from despair. In other words: Atheists do not expect to survive the demise of their bodies, nor do they expect to get another body in the future; let alone a better body— one that's superior in all respects to the body they have now. Believers expect to not only survive the demise of their body; but also to get a better body— one that's superior in all respects to the one they have now.

When somebody has that kind of hope, it rescues them from despair. In other words: the Atheist's current existence is futile, but the believer's current existence is merely a stepping stone to something better. Believers have something to look forward to while Atheists have nothing to look forward to. That's what it means to be "saved by hope". In other words: saved from having nothing to look forward to. (cf. 1Cor 15:51-54)

When people are praying for the best, while in the back of their mind dreading the worst, they have absolutely no cause for rejoicing; no; but they do have plenty of cause to fear the unknown.

Does an adherent of Catholicism have elpis hope? I don't think so; and in point of fact, Church dogma forbids having it on pain of a special curse.

Webster's defines "anathema" as: a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.

Since Rome doesn't permit elpis hope, then it's de facto that Rome's constituents can't possibly comply with Peter's mandate to give a reason for having it.

Catholicism's hope is not Peter's elpis hope; but rather, a somewhat nervous state of anxiety and wishful thinking that hovers within a hair's breadth of bitter disappointment.

The Catechism aside; it only stands to reason, that any candidate for Heaven who is in the process of working out their own salvation with fear and trembling as per Rome's interpretation of Php 2:12, cannot possibly have elpis hope. Think about it. If a candidate for salvation is still in the process of working out their own salvation with fear and trembling, then it's obvious they do not believe themselves to have a new supernatural body locked in yet; ergo: no conscientious Catholic can honestly look forward to Heaven with a 100% doubt-free expectation of obtaining it; viz: they do not yet have the kind of hope about which Peter wrote in 1Pet 3:15, nor the kind of hope about which the Bible's Paul wrote in Eph 4:5; and if they claim otherwise, then they fall under the curse of Council of Trent, Canon 16.

The "hope" to which the objector refers is not the hope about which the Bible's Peter wrote in 1Pet 3:15 nor the hope about which the Bible's Paul wrote in Eph 4:5.

The objector's hope refers to the nervous anxiety that mountain climbers, Olympic athletes, professional wrestlers, and Las Vegas gamblers feel during their endeavors. They desire to win, and there's a chance they might win; but there's no guarantee they will.

The kind of hope about the Bible's Peter and the Bible's Paul wrote, is the kind of exhilarating anticipation that people feel when they already know in advance something's in the bag. Catholics do not believe they have either Heaven or a supernatural body in the bag, therefore they do not have the kind of hope about which the Bible's Peter wrote in 1Pet 3:15 nor the hope about which the Bible's Paul wrote in Eph 4:5.

The kind of hope that Catholics have can be labeled as "hope against hope" which Webster's defines as: to hope without any basis for expecting fulfillment. viz: a chance.

Yes, Catholics have a chance; but they do not have any guarantees; nor are they permitted to.

Ironically, the New Testament is sprinkled with lots of "special revelations" guaranteeing believers a 100% retribution-proof, fail-safe, commandment-proof, God-proof, sin-proof rescue from the wrath of God and safe passage to Heaven; but rank and file pew warmers are either totally unaware of them or feel those special revelations are simply just too good to be true.

OBJECTION : Can any Catholic honestly say they have Heaven in the bag? No, but then neither can any other Christian if they are honest with themselves.

If what that objector says were true, then Peter's mandate would be an oxymoron; which Webster's defines as: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words— and/or a non sequitur, which Webster's defines as: 1) an inference that does not follow from the premises, and 2) a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said.

While true that no member of Rome's church can attest in all honesty and a good conscience that they have a new body in the bag; every member, without exception, in the church that the New Testament's Christ labeled as "my" church can.

§. Matt 16:18 . .And I say to you that you are (petros) a stone; and upon this (petra) rock massive I will build my church; and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

If, as the objector says, no honest Christian has the future in the bag, then Jesus' prediction in Matt 16:18 would be just as hollow as a politician's bombast, and absolutely nobody would have a hope that's worth taking the time and trouble to explain. However, the kind of hope Peter is talking about in 1Pet 3:15 isn't your average pew warmer's cross-your-fingers kind of hope; no, it's an in-the-bag hope; which is a kind of hope that fully deserves an explanation.

The true hope of salvation isn't like when job seekers stand by their phones wishing for a call from a prospective employer. NO, NO, NO, not even similar. Salvation's hope is a confident, pleasurable expectation of going to Heaven; which is a kind of hope that salvation's beneficiaries enjoy because they already know they're going to Heaven. That is totally opposite to entertaining a wishful longing to go to Heaven; and all the while wondering if you'll make the cut.

What is Catholicism's kind of hope? It's nothing in the world but a worry-wart hope because Catholics are required to wait for the verdict rather than rest assured they have nothing to worry about in spite of the fact that the New Testament's Jesus personally guarantees the safety of all who believe.

The reason that Christ can guarantee immunity from prosecution to those who heed his message and believe in God who sent him, is because he grants believers eternal life; which is a kind of life that cannot die; therefore it is impervious to the wages of sin.

§. Rom 6:23 . .For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

§. Rom 8:1-2 . .There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of The Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the jurisdiction of sin and of death.

§. Eph 1:13-14 . .And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were sealed in him with the promised Holy Spirit; who is a good-faith deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession

The New Testament's gospel is "good" news. Catholicism's gospel isn't good at all; no, it's borderline despair, as anybody with even a cursory knowledge of Catholicism can attest. Many a prospective convert to Christianity has given up on it simply because they were introduced to Christianity via Catholicism; which is a discouraging version of Christianity that makes Heaven virtually impossible to obtain, and leaves people in doubt about the future, and anxious about their personal safety.

Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her public image bore no resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner being. Below are some quotes taken from her own private letters; and excerpts of her testimony from other sources. You be the judge. Saint, or charlatan?

"Only pray that I keep up this joy exteriorly. I deceive people with this weapon— even my Sisters."

"I am grateful to for all the kindness & help you give to my Sisters and me. My prayer, though miserably dry & frozen, is often offered for you & your work for souls."

"When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul. How painful is this unknown pain— I have no faith."

"I am told God loves me; and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."

"Now Father— since 49 or 50 this terrible sense of loss— this untold darkness— this loneliness, this continual longing for God— which gives me pain deep down in my heart— Darkness is such that I really do not see neither with my mind nor with my reason— the place of God in my soul is blank— There is no God in me— when the pain of longing is so great— I just long & long for God— and then it is that I feel— He does not want me— He is not there— God does not want me— Sometimes— I just hear my own heart cry out— "My God" and nothing else comes— the torture and pain I can't explain"

"The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God; and that He does not really exist."

"Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you've found God, it's up to you to decide how to worship him" (Mother Teresa Touched Other Faiths, Associated Press, 9/7/97).

"We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God's presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men— simply better —we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life— his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation."

The April 7-13, 1990, issue of Radio Times tells the story of Mother Teresa sheltering an old Hindu priest. "She nursed him with her own hands and helped him to die reconciled with his own gods."

Teresa was virtually 100% estranged from both God and Christ during the whole five decades of her work in India. She experienced a darkness of the soul unparalleled among Catholic mystics. Some say this was in preparation for her eventual sainthood. But Paul the apostle was a "saint" and he never once experienced Teresa's depth of abandonment. In point of fact, he never experienced any abandonment whatsoever; nor should any other of Christ's followers.

§. John 14:15-18 . .If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Counselor, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

§. John 14:23 . .If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

§. John 15:10 . .If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love.

§. Php 4:5-7 . .The Lord is nearby. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your concerns to God. And the peace of God, which is beyond the intellect, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

§. Rom 8:15-16 . .For you have not received a spirit of slavery again to fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out; Dad! Father! The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

The Spirit's silence in Teresa's heart, and her utter lack of peace, were indicative of something very fatal in her association with the Bible's God.

§. 1John 1:5-7 . .This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

Father Neuner, one of Teresa's spiritual advisors commented: "Why had God abandoned her totally? She had to lead the Sisters, initiate them into the love of God and into a life of prayer, which had been wiped out in her own life as she lived in total emptiness. Had she become a shameful hypocrite who spoke to others about the divine mysteries which had totally vanished from her own heart?"

All evidence points to the obvious conclusion that Teresa was the most convincing Christian pretense the twentieth century ever produced.

§. Matt 7:22-23 . .Many will say to me in that day; Lord, Master, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them; I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

That passage doesn't target Atheists, nor Hindus, nor Muslims. No, it targets people professing to have done many wonderful works in Christ's name; viz: it targets Christians— and not just your average rank and file pew warmers, no, but rather, it targets outstanding Christians like Mother Teresa, Padre Pio, Jeanne Jugan, Jozef Damian de Veuster, archbishop Zygmunt Szczesny Felinski, Francisco Coll y Guitart, Rafael Arnaiz Baron, Father Arcangelo Tadini, Sister Caterina Volpicelli, theologian Bernardo Tolomei, Gertrude Caterina Comensoli, Carmelite monk Nuno de Santa Maria Alvares Pereira, Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, Billy Graham, Luis Palau, and a host of Sunday school teachers, Pastors, Deacons and church elders— the cream of the crop; the celebrities of the Christian world; renowned for their accomplishments, their piety, their perseverance, their love, and their dedication.

It is to many of those very kinds of Christians that Jesus will say "I never knew you." Why? Because many of those kinds of Christians were distant from Christ and his Father their whole time on earth.

The morality of gays and lesbians is essentially a non issue for Catholics. Rome soundly condemns homosexuality as 1) an act of grave depravity, 2) intrinsically disordered, 3) contrary to natural law, and 4) under no circumstances approved.

CCC 2357 . .Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

§. Lev 20:13 . .If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

§. Rom 1:25-27 . .They exchanged the truth of God for a lie . . Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

§. 1Cor 6:9-10 . .Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals . .will inherit the kingdom of God.

§. 1Cor 10:11 . .These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

§. 2John 10-11 . .If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

"Although there are many things you wrote about that I cannot refute; deep down I know you are wrong even though I can't prove it. And anyway, all you've really done is manipulate the Scriptures to support your own personal beliefs. I will never leave the Roman Catholic Church! I am stronger in my Catholic beliefs now than ever before."

That person went and did the very same thing that an obstinate Pharaoh did when he went toe to toe with Moses. They stiffened their resolve; so that no matter what Rome's critics say now, they'll never give in.

§. Mark 3:22-30 . .And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said: He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.

. . So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables. How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

. . I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

Matthew's version says that Jesus "knew their thoughts". So then, he was fully aware of which among the Pharisees were convinced in their own mind that Jesus was a Divine agent; given miraculous powers from God, and commissioned by God for a special purpose. According to Nicodemus (John 3:1-2) there were a number of Pharisees who knew very well that Jesus was on the up-and-up. Most of them never admitted to it of course because they were obtuse— the natural result of being seriously infected with a spirit of rivalry, envy, spite, and religious elitism.

Pharisees in that state would rather burn in Hell than admit they're wrong. For those kinds of Pharisees to remark that Jesus was working with the Devil, was all the same as slandering God's spirit, because they themselves knew better. Theirs wasn't an innocent mistake; no, they deliberately suppressed the voice of their own conscience, and fiercely contradicted their own better judgment; which only serves to illustrate just how sadly lacking in integrity that many of Jesus' opponents really are. They not only can't be true with God, but they can't even be true to themselves.

The Bible is not like other books. It's kept close by a supernatural custodian; and that custodian is the Bible God's spirit. Even Christ's hand-picked apostles could neither understand, nor apply, the Bible properly until he empowered their minds with an insight into the things of God.

§. Luke 24:27 . .And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

§. Luke 24:44-46 . .And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

No matter how high one's IQ, nor how many degrees of education they possess, in spiritual matters people will remain like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there sans God's assistance.

§. 1Cor 2:10-16 . .For who among men comprehends the thoughts of a man except the human spirit which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one comprehends except God's spirit. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit who is from God, that we might comprehend the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by The Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But an earthly man does not accept the things of God's spirit; for they are absurd to him, and he cannot make sense of them, because they cannot be discerned by the mortal mind.

Since it is impossible for the unassisted mortal mind to either comprehend, or accept the things of God, then how does anyone become a believer? The answer to that is so simple that most people just never think of it, primarily because unbelievers have no clue about the supernatural aspects of New Testament Christianity.

God's spirit has always been active in the minds of men; even from the days of the Flood.

§. Gen 6:3 . .Then Yhvh said; My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is a sinful mortal— yet his days will be a hundred and twenty years.

In Jonah's day, God gave Ninevah 40 days to clean up their act. In Noah's day, God gave the antediluvians 120 years. I think that was plenty of time to either shape up or face the Flood.

Anyway, exactly how did God's spirit contend with Man in Noah's day? Answer: Through Noah's preaching.

§. 1Pet 3:18-21 . .For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

The Spirit's method hasn't changed. He still contends with Man via preaching and here is how it works.

When an unbeliever hears a message preached by a man of God, The Spirit works in a telepathic way to persuade the unbeliever that what they are hearing is valid. At that moment, the unbeliever, though usually totally unaware of God's Spirit tampering with his mind, is forced to make a decision. Does he yield to The Spirit's persuasion; or does he resist? Those who yield become believers; those who don't become obtuse.

§. Heb 3:7-8 . .So, as the Holy Spirit says: Today, if you hear His voice, do not stiffen your resolve.

OUTSIDER'S OBJECTION : Luke said: And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27) and Christ said: These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. (Luke 24:44-46) - - Then, why don't ALL believers understand his words in the same exact way?

Excellent question; and very pertinent in a web page devoted to exposing the futility of Roman Catholicism.

All believers do understand Jesus' words exactly the same way. However; not everyone professing themselves to be "believers" actually believe.

The acid test of belief is the right-now possession of eternal life. In the excerpts below, note the grammatical tense of the "have" verb. It conveys a present tense; not future.

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

The possession of eternal life is essential in order to be of one mind with the Bible's God and His son.

You would think that most Catholics would readily agree that when it comes to judging the validity of someone's claim to be a believer that the Bible's God would certainly be an unimpeachable expert witness. But no, it rarely works out that way. It has been my own personal experience that rank and file pew warmers almost always, and with scant few exceptions, throw out God's testimony and lean upon Rome's instead. That is a very stupid, stupid thing to do.

§. 1John 5:9-10 . .We accept human testimony; but God's testimony carries more weight because it's the testimony of God . . Anyone who does not believe God insinuates that He's a liar; because he has disbelieved the testimony God has given about His son.

According to the Bible God's testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to eternal life, people professing themselves to be believers while not possessing eternal life, are quite Christless.

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

People professing themselves to be believers, while not possessing eternal life; are alienated from the New Testament's Christ— they are not one of his sheep; they do not follow him, nor do they pay any attention to him.

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

OUTSIDER'S QUESTION : Please explain again what eternal life is. How is it possible lo have eternal life while we are but mortals?

Eternal Life is not to be confused with Immortality. Life and Immortality are juxtaposed in 2Tim 1:10; where the two terms are connected with a conjunction. They aren't connected with a verb, so that you can't say Life is Immortality; no, Life and Immortality are two distinctly different states of being. Immortality refers to the nature of one's body; while Life refers to the nature of one's existence; e.g. animal life, plant life, human life, angel life, and God life.

All forms of life in the cosmos are dead in that none of it is self-sustaining. The human race today, therefore, consists of two major divisions: the Living and the Dead (Acts 10:42, 2Tim 4:1) the "dead" being those who do not have eternal life. If that were not so, then Jesus would not have bothered to come.

Eternal Life isn't a physical kind of life like immortality; but rather, it's the life of God (John 3:6-7, 1John 1:1-2) who is said to be spirit (John 4:24) and who never had a beginning nor will ever have an ending. From the vanishing point in the past, to the vanishing point in the future, the Bible's God has always existed, and He will always be.

The major benefit of eternal life is not so much its longevity. No, that benefit is only incidental. The major benefit is that it cannot die.

§. Rom 6:23 . .For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life

It is because of eternal life's immunity to the wages of sin that Jesus could promise that his church is in absolutely no danger of eternal suffering.

§. Matt 16:15-18 . .But what about you?" Jesus asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are petros, and upon this petra I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not overcome it.

If the Roman Catholic Church were the "my" church about which Jesus spoke; then not one single solitary Catholic would ever go to Hell because the members of his church all have eternal life; which is a kind of life that is impervious to the wages of sin.

Since eternal life regards the nature of one's existence, rather than the nature of their body; then you cannot tell by looking at people who has it and who doesn't.

§. John 3:8 . .The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from nor where it is going. So it is with everyone born of The Spirit.

The Gospel's goal is towards two primary ends: the satisfaction of justice, and the possession of eternal life; and no one can obtain the one without the other— they're joined at the hip. However, the satisfaction of justice has the #1 priority; with eternal life at #2 and the automatic consequence of the satisfaction of justice.