Why I Had To Apostatize

[Webers_Home]

-
Easter week commemorates the most important event in the history of
mankind-- Christ's resurrection.

The Bible says that Jesus was raised again for our justification (Rom 4:25).

In other words: his recovery validates Christianity.

†. 1Cor 15:17 . . If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in
your sins!

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 Christ's gravesite on
Easter morning, and you will not find her mentioned among them. None of
Christ's original disciples believed he was going to recover from crucifixion,
so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Christ's 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 Christ's followers.

There's really very few plausible Bible reasons why Christ's mom wasn't out
in the cemetery waiting to greet her son Easter morning.

1• She didn't believe he was coming back

2• She didn't believe he could come back

3• She forgot he said he was coming back

4• She didn't know he said he was coming back

5• She was indisposed when he came back

6• She was out of town when he came back

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
Christ's mom was indisposed.

In regards to #6; it's highly unlikely Christ's 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
34+ 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 Christ's 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
water and fresh clothing; but alas, she wasn't: not because she didn't love
her son; but simply because she wasn't expecting him to be there.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Q: What about John 19:26-27? "When Jesus saw his mother and the
disciple there whom he loved, 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 into his home." - - Doesn't that indicate Mary was out
of town?

A: 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 buggy 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
so and so to be your lawfully wedded wife?

From that angle, it can be seen that the disciple, whom Jesus loved,
accepted responsibility for the care of Christ's mom without hesitation; as if
she were his own kin; in accordance with Ex 20:12.

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 dependent
was still in Jerusalem too; most especially if she was expecting her boy to
recover. So Christ's 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. Christ's mom
and Mary Magdalena were close friends (John 19:25). Even after her friend
Mary M. reported Jesus alive, Christ's 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 Christ's 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. Christ's 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 entire 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
Rome has managed to somehow circumvent the Holy Ghost, and do exactly
what He would prefer they didn't.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[tom55]

Webers Home wrote:
The Church defines a Christian as someone whose religion is Christianity
as it realized in the Roman Catholic Church alone. So when a Catholic
defects; they have broken with Christianity as far as Rome is concerned.

LOL....That quote is from July but I just saw it today while browsing around. It makes me sad that you are attacking our Christian brothers. Here is how the Catholic Church defines a Christian: A name derived from that of Christ himself. The name refers to all those who have been anointed through the gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism; hence, the followers of Christ, the members of the Christian Church. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

If your going to attack another Christian at least do it with the truth instead of easy to research lies!! But I suppose the hate in your heart has blinded you!

Tom55

 

[Webers_Home]

-

Here is how the Catholic Church defines a Christian: The name refers to all
those who have been anointed through the gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism;
hence, the followers of Christ, the members of the Christian Church.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

You've been deceived by semantics, and should be ashamed of yourself for
the way you acted.

The "gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism" refers to an anointing obtained by
baptism performed by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The "Christian
Church" refers to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The "members" refers to
people baptized into the Holy Roman Catholic Church; viz: the "members"
are Catholics.

Friend, you fail to appreciate just how exclusive the mentality of the Holy
Roman Catholic Church really is. It recognizes no other church on earth but
itself as Christ's duly authorized representative. It believes itself alone the
one and only true church. Ergo: if people are not baptized members of the
Holy Roman Catholic Church, then their Christian label is invalid: they are
frauds.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church regards itself a sort of Noah's ark; viz: If
you're inside, then you're in league with Christ; if you're outside, then you're
not in league with Christ. In other words; Christ's true "followers" are
baptized members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

I'm not saying anything new here. This information has been common
knowledge for centuries.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[tom55]

-

You've been deceived by semantics, and should be ashamed of yourself for
the way you acted.

You, my friend, are the one who is deceiving yourself and others. I quoted the Catechism which tells us what Catholics believe. It doesn't matter what you THINK they believe. What matters is that you have so much hate in your heart you can't see past it. (in my opinion)
The "gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism" refers to an anointing obtained by
baptism performed by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The "Christian
Church" refers to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The "members" refers to
people baptized into the Holy Roman Catholic Church; viz: the "members"
are Catholics.
That is your version. Here is the truth: However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.
Friend, you fail to appreciate just how exclusive the mentality of the Holy
Roman Catholic Church really is. It recognizes no other church on earth but
itself as Christ's duly authorized representative. It believes itself alone the
one and only true church. Ergo: if people are not baptized members of the
Holy Roman Catholic Church, then their Christian label is invalid: they are
frauds.

Once again you are lying to yourself and us. Here is the truth: Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church:..."
The Holy Roman Catholic Church regards itself a sort of Noah's ark; viz: If
you're inside, then you're in league with Christ; if you're outside, then you're
not in league with Christ. In other words; Christ's true "followers" are
baptized members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Is this your belief or are you reading someone else's theory??

I'm not saying anything new here. This information has been common
knowledge for centuries.

Finally we agree on something. This false information has been common knowledge for centuries. Please stop attacking our Christian brothers with lies. That is how Satan works and I presume you are a Christian!

 

[Webers_Home]

-

I presume you are a Christian!

I am not a member of the Holy Roman Catholic Church; and the paragraph
below from the catechism makes it okay for me to be this way.

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.

It is my sincere and honest conviction, that all members of the Holy Roman
Catholic Church to a man, including the Pope, are on a road to hell. Whether
they actually are on a road to hell is unimportant; what's important is that it
is my sincere and honest conviction; and CCC 1782 gives me the right to
stand by my convictions in religious matters.

I don't condemn the Holy Roman Catholic Church lightly. My eldest biological
brother is a near-75 semi retired Friar who's given his life to the Holy Roman
Catholic Church. The prospect of watching him be told, at the Great White
Throne event depicted at Rev 20:11-15, that it was all for naught, is an
awful thing to have on my mind.

The worst of it is: I may have to appear as a witness to testify in the
prosecution's case against him. Can you just imagine how I'm going to feel
taking part in condemning my own brother to a second death in the lake of
smoldering brimstone? Thank God there's going to be a memory wipe when
everything's all over.

†. Rev 21:4-6 . . He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there
shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or
crying, or pain; the first things have passed away. And He who sits on the
throne said: Behold, I am making all things new. And He said: Write, for
these words are faithful and true.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[tom55]

-

I am not a member of the Holy Roman Catholic Church; and the paragraph
below from the catechism makes it okay for me to be this way.

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.

It is my sincere and honest conviction, that all members of the Holy Roman
Catholic Church to a man, including the Pope, are on a road to hell. Whether
they actually are on a road to hell is unimportant; what's important is that it
is my sincere and honest conviction; and CCC 1782 gives me the right to
stand by my convictions in religious matters.

I don't condemn the Holy Roman Catholic Church lightly. My eldest biological
brother is a near-75 semi retired Friar who's given his life to the Holy Roman
Catholic Church. The prospect of watching him be told, at the Great White
Throne event depicted at Rev 20:11-15, that it was all for naught, is an
awful thing to have on my mind.

The worst of it is: I may have to appear as a witness to testify in the
prosecution's case against him. Can you just imagine how I'm going to feel
taking part in condemning my own brother to a second death in the lake of
smoldering brimstone? Thank God there's going to be a memory wipe when
everything's all over.

†. Rev 21:4-6 . . He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there
shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or
crying, or pain; the first things have passed away. And He who sits on the
throne said: Behold, I am making all things new. And He said: Write, for
these words are faithful and true

Is this your belief or are you reading someone else's theory??

Since you are in compliance with and agree with CCC1782 does that mean you have a little bit of Catholic in you??

Also, I clearly proved you wrong in what you were saying about what the Church teaches. Are you going to defend your lie or just continue preaching to me and attacking fellow Christians?

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Q: 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.

A: 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. That
notion is incredibly moronic.

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.
Had Jerome the heart of a family man, he wouldn't have made such at
thoughtless statement.

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.

A Jewish family with only one child is missing a blessing.

†. 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: Rome 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 John Q. and Jane Doe
pew warmer, but not for Joseph and his wife. For the holy couple, normal
marital relations are carnal, unholy, 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.

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.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Webers_Home]

-
OBJECTION: Shouldn't you take into account the controversy between
Jerome and Helvidius, written around 380ad, regarding Mary's perpetual
virginity?

RESPONSE: I consider it much more profitable to consider the controversy
between Rome's 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.

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, or the beliefs and opinions its so-called
church fathers; and the preposterous yarns spun by its fertile imagination.

†. 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.

The Holy Spirit, the divine inspirer of holy writ, puts the emphasis on Mary's
virginity at the time of Christ's birth. I think it's quite out of harmony with
God's Spirit to quarrel over whether or not two Jews 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. People 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' current estimates: one person
dies on average every 12 seconds in America. That's 7,200 homeland deaths
in the course of just one 24-hour day.

According to 2009 US Census data; roughly 27.3% of America's daily deaths
are under the age of 19, which would indicate that approximately 5,234 of
the current daily death rate of 7,200 per 24 hours are adults. Giving the
"many" the benefit of the doubt by setting their maximum percentage at
51%, would indicate a minimum of 2,669 American adults transferring to
perdition every day: which translates to roughly 111 per hour. Think of that!
By the time CBS completes its half-hour evening news, 51 Americans have
been passed on to hell.

Those numbers would fill the new 51,800 seat Yankee Stadium in roughly
19½ 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 doomed Roman Catholics.

Do you really think that any of those doomed Roman Catholics actually think
it's important whether or not Christ's 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.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Rome's New Eve

Because of Eve’s disobedience to God and Adam’s cooperation with her, they
lost sanctifying grace for themselves and their offspring. Like Eve, Mary was
created full of grace. But unlike Eve, Mary remained obedient to God, just as
Christ, unlike Adam, remained obedient to God. In cooperation with God,
Mary became Mother of the Redeemer and, in cooperation with Christ, she
became Mother of the redeemed as well.

The phrase "New Eve" or similar expressions occur in the early Church
Fathers. Take, for example, Justin Martyr, who wrote within a couple of
generations of the apostles. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. A.D.
150), Justin explains that Christ destroyed Satan’s work in the same way
evil originally entered the world. Evil entered through Eve while she was still
a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin.
Each woman willingly participated in the act they performed. Neither was an
unconscious instrument.

Eve listened to the serpent and conceived death. Mary listened to the angel
Gabriel and conceived life. Justin sees this clearly in Luke 1:38 when Mary
says, "Let it be to me according to your word." Thus, for Justin, Christ’s
becoming a man involved his Mother’s willing cooperation in undoing the
tangled web of sin that Eve introduced. The concept of the New Eve taught
by the Church Fathers is a case in point because it is a summary and natural
extension of Paul’s doctrine of Christ as the New Adam.

— KJ Howell —

Rome's primary error of course was in labeling Christ a "new" Adam. The
correct title is "the last" Adam (1Cor 15:45). That may seem like semantic
nit picking but significance is lost when the last Adam is labeled new instead
of last.

The Greek word is eschatos (es'-khat-os) which doesn't mean new; it means
final. That's important; especially when final is the final option.

Webster's defines "final" as pertaining to something not to be changed or
done again and/or something that is not to be either altered or undone.

Rome's title "the new Eve" isn't biblical: it's a man-made construction.
Nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus' mother labeled either a second Eve,
a new Eve, a last Eve; or any other kind of an Eve for that matter.

Jesus' mom gave birth to an h.sapiens. However; the last Adam isn't
described as an h.sapiens, rather, he's described as something much more.

†. 1Cor 15:45a . . It is written: "The first man, Adam, became a living soul"

That's quoted from Gen 2:7 where the first Adam came into being by means
of creation. But the last Adam didn't come into being by means of creation.
In point of fact, the last Adam is the origin of the first Adam's existence.

†. 1Cor 15:45b . . the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

In other words: the last Adam is the source of life for all creatures great and
small, including Jesus' mom.

†. John 3:3-4 . . All things came to be through him, and without him nothing
came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light
of the human race

The first Adam is perpetuated through Eve.

†. Gen 3:20 . .The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother
of all the living.

However, the last Adam is not perpetuated through a woman. No, the last
Adam is self-perpetuating. In other words: Jesus' mom plays no role in
perpetuating the last Adam because none of the life-giving spirit's progeny
are born of women, instead, they are born of God.

†. John 1:10-13 . . He was in the world, and the world came to be through
him, but the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his
own did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to
become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born
not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man's decision but
of God.

†. John 3:5-7 . . Amen, Amen, I say to you: no one can enter the kingdom
of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh
and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you: You
must be born from above.

Rome's title "the new Eve" is construed by means of some pretty clever
sophistry; but that's all it really amounts to in the long haul: just clever
sophistry.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[epostle1]

It seems to me you have no respect for Our Lord's mother, Webers-Home. Maybe you had no respect for your own mother which may explain your inability to grasp the Biblical Mary.

Luke 1:48 "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.

A proper Biblical title is Blessed Virgin Mary. (BVM)You can't even grant her that much; you are in no position to be defining theological terms. Your description of The New Eve is full of errors.

Satanists attempt to desecrate the BVM too. The difference between you and them, IMO, is one of degree. You need to repent of your occultism. You've done nothing but put down Jesus' mother at every opportunity.

** SATANISTS DESECRATE VIRGIN MARY STATUE AT CATHOLIC CATHEDRAL ON CHRISTMAS EVE **​

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl6dnoEUbTw

A satanic group desecrated a statue of the Virgin Mary on Christmas Eve in front of Saint Joseph Old Cathedral in Oklahoma City.
The Satanists dressed in priest cossacks and smeared blood on the Virgin Mary on Christmas Eve outside the church. They draped themselves in Satanic symbols and recited a Satanic prayer.
full article here http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/shock-video-satanists-attack-virgin-mary-at-catholic-cathedral-on-christmas-eve/

One more thing you have in common with Satanists, Webers-Home: an irrational hatred for the Catholic Church. Make a B-line for your prayer-chair and stop persecuting Catholics with your sophistry.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
COMMON ATTITUDE: Although there are many things about which you
speak 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.

RESPONSE: People in that state of mind have gone and done the very same
thing that an obstinate Pharaoh did when he went toe to toe with Moses in
the book of Exodus. They've 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
pride and elitism.

Their remark that Christ is in league with the Devil, was all the same as
slandering God's spirit because Christ spoke in the power of the Spirit.

†. 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.

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 Christ's opponents really are. They not only can't be true with
God, but they can't even be true to themselves. When people get to that
point, their afterlife destiny is pretty much set in concrete.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Christ limited days to 12 hours, and no more.

†. John 11:9 . . Jesus answered: are there not twelve hours in the day? A
man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light.

"this world's light" is the sun. So according to Christ, day is when the sun is
up, and night is when the sun is down.

Days divided into twelve equal periods of sunlight were regulated by what's
known as temporal hours; which vary in length in accordance with the time
of year. There are times of the year at Jerusalem's latitude when days on
earth consist of less than 12 normal hours of daylight, and sometimes more;
but when Jesus was here; the official number of hours was always 12
regardless.

I don't exactly know why the Jews of that era divided their days into twelve
equal periods of sunlight regardless of the seasons, but I suspect it was just
a convenient way to operate the government and conduct civil affairs;
including the Temple's activities; e.g. the daily morning and evening
sacrifices.

John 11:9 isn't the only passage in the Bible that defines day as when the
sun is up, and night is when the sun is down. Gen 1:14 defines days and
nights that way too.

Furthermore: Gen 1:16-18 defines night as when the stars are out.

Anyway: Matt 17:22-23, Mark 9:31, Luke 9:22, Luke 24:12-21, Luke 24:46,
Acts 10:40, and 1Cor 15:4 all indicate that Christ revived during the third
day rather than after the third day was over and done. (Keep in mind that
the Bible defines day as when the sun is up.)

So if we assign Sunday as the third day, then it's child's play to identify
Saturday as the second, and Friday as the first.

And if we permit the Bible to define night as when the sun is down; then
Saturday night is the third night, Friday night is the second night, and
Thursday night is the first night.

FYI: Some folk insist that Christ rose from the dead Saturday night after the
weekly sabbath ended at sundown. But keep in mind that Matt 17:22-23,
Mark 9:31, Luke 9:22, Luke 24:12-21, Luke 24:46, Acts 10:40, and 1Cor
15:4 all indicate that Christ revived during the third day rather than during
the third night; and according to John 11:9, Gen 1:14, and Gen 1:16-18;
day is when the sun is up, and night is when the sun is down.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Christ's last supper was a Passover.

†. Luke 22:7-16 . .Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the
Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying: Go
and make preparations for us to eat the Passover,.

. . .Where do you want us to prepare for it?

. . . He replied: As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet
you. Follow him to the house that he enters, and say to the owner of the
house: "The Teacher asks: where is the guest room, where I may eat the
Passover with my disciples?" He will show you a large upper room, all
furnished. Make preparations there.

. . .They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared
the Passover.

. . .When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he
said to them: I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I
suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the
kingdom of God.

The Jews ate their Passover after Christ was arrested and put on trial.

†. John 13:1-2 . . Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew
that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the
Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto
the end. And supper being ended, etc, etc.

†. John 18:28 . .Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it
was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest
they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

†. John 19:13-14 . .When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought
Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The
Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the day of preparation for
the Passover; it was about the sixth hour.

In other words: Christ ate his own Passover a full twenty-four hours before
the Jews ate theirs

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Webers_Home]

-
OBJECTION: Friday is definitively the day of Christ's crucifixion because the
Sabbath followed immediately.

RESPONSE: The identity of that particular sabbath is easily the most
common error that people make when attempting to calculate the
chronology of the three nights that Christ predicted at Matt 12:40.

Most of us have had it drilled into our heads since childhood that the word
"sabbath" always, and without exception, refers to the usual seventh-day
repose. However; that word not only applies to the usual day; it also applies
to other holy days wherein no servile work is permitted.

For example Yom Kippur [Lev 16:31), the Feast of Trumpets (Num 19:1),
and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:5-8)

The Feast of Unleavened Bread (a.k.a. Passover week) is interesting because
it has two days wherein no servile work is permitted, one at the beginning of
the feast, and another at the end; and while the usual sabbaths are fixed;
Passover sabbaths float so that it's actually possible to have two consecutive
sabbaths when Passover sabbaths butt up against the usual sabbaths.

That very situation occurred in 1994, 2001 and 2008. Passover fell on
Sunday. So Judaism had to observe two sabbaths in a row those years: the
usual sabbath on Saturday, followed immediately by a Passover sabbath on
Sunday; which for Judaism is normally the first day of the week. At the end
of the feast, they did it all over again.

FYI: Some time ago I searched Passover dates back fifty years and could
not find even one time when it fell on a Friday. I'm not accusing the Jews of
manipulating their religious calendar to make sure Passover never falls on a
Friday, but I cannot help but suspect that is exactly what they do.

Anyway; having consecutive sabbaths in the mix throws people off when
they try to construct a chronology of the three nights that Christ predicted
because it's so easy to mistake Passover's sabbath for the usual sabbath.
Bear with me while I flesh this out.

According to John 13:1-2 and John 18:28, the Jews had not yet eaten their
Passover when Christ was arrested and put on trial.

According to John 19:13-14, Christ's crucifixion took place on the day when
the Jews removed leavened bread from their homes and slaughtered lambs
for the Passover dinner that night.

The old covenant's holy days typically kick off at sundown of the previous
day; ergo: the Jews' Passover sabbath that year kicked off at sundown of
the very day of Christ's crucifixion.

†. John 19:31 . .The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the
bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that
sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be
broken, and that they might be taken away.

The Greek word for "high" is megas (meg'-as) which essentially means big.
Well yeah of course that particular sabbath was big. It wasn't a usual
sabath; no, it was a Passover sabbath.

Now, I feel it only fair to warn everybody that there are some heavy hitters
out there, some with Th.D. degrees, who refuse to factor the Jews' Passover
sabbath into the three nights that Christ predicted at Matt 12:40; so be
prepared for some pretty stiff opposition; from not only the heavy hitters
themselves, but also from their admirers.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Lady Daffodil]

Good for you, WebersHome! :m1212:

 

[ScaliaFan]

-

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
====

that's not true. You were told that by someone.

The Catholic Church NEVER contradicts the Bible. It may SEEM like it but that is just subjectivity @ work

Christ established a Church. Do u not agree?

anyone who knows history knows that Church is the RC Church.

Luther broke up the Church in 1521. He was a heretic, taught false beliefs.

The Church is full of imperfect persons, as all churches are. But that hardly makes it not the Church Christ established.

So if the RCC is the Church Christ founded, we can trust everything it OFFICIALLY teaches... not what some wayward priest may teach but what the Church officially (ex cathedra) teaches

The Church is protected from teaching error, protected by none other than JEsus Christ himself

 

[epostle1]

that's not true. You were told that by someone.

The Catholic Church NEVER contradicts the Bible. It may SEEM like it but that is just subjectivity @ work

Christ established a Church. Do u not agree?

anyone who knows history knows that Church is the RC Church.

Luther broke up the Church in 1521. He was a heretic, taught false beliefs.

The Church is full of imperfect persons, as all churches are. But that hardly makes it not the Church Christ established.

So if the RCC is the Church Christ founded, we can trust everything it OFFICIALLY teaches... not what some wayward priest may teach but what the Church officially (ex cathedra) teaches

The Church is protected from teaching error, protected by none other than JEsus Christ himself

What Weber's_Home means is that Rome does not always agree with his private opinions. "Three days and three nights" is a Hebrew idiom covering Friday to Sunday, they are not literal 24 hour days. We use similar idioms describing a 3-day vacation. It does not mean a 72 hour vacation. Weber's_Home is in error, just he is in error in his obsession with tearing down the Catholic Church. I would think that Jesus would know more about WHEN to have the Passover than Weber's_Home, but what I suspect he is really trying to do is separate the Passover from the Crucifixion. It's all the same sacrifice, folks.

 

[ScaliaFan]

I would think that Jesus would know more about WHEN to have the Passover than Weber's_Home,

LOL

yeh, what many noncatholics dont realize is that they believe highly illogical things concerning .. well.. many things. Jesus knew (I don't know how, but He knew ) that people would struggle and not know stuff... and so he made the Church the wya he made it.. sacraments!

and of course, the greatest is the Eucharist, which causes His very Presence to be with us... as per Mt28:20 which says that He will never leave us nor forsake us.. His Presence is with us here on Earth!

amazing.. I don't get why more noncatholics don't at least have a curiosity about that... THAT is truly strange.. and bizarre... and etc....



:unsure: