The things that you’re liable to read in the Bible…

[SSTeacher]

I do, respectfully, see one problem in your reasoning justifying your preference of the Divine Liturgy over the Mass. It seems to make you FEEL more. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I’m wrong!!

Well, perhaps you’re correct. I am trying to reason my way along but my feelings and my emotions are certainly coming into play. But provided I haven’t fallen into the trap of emotionalism then I ought to be able to stay on track. It’s probably impossible completely to separate one’s reason from one’s emotion so I guess being aware of how easy it is to fool oneself is pivotal. I suppose that’s one of the reasons why this forum is helpful to inquirers.

If there is an objective truth that God revealed, if Jesus established ONE visible Church to teach and defend it, then it seems that what you FEEL when you’re there does not make it the right or wrong Church. It either is or it isn’t. Maybe I’m reading you wrong? I apologize if I am.

I think you’re pretty much on target.

Some masses have drumsets and electric guitars (not in my diocese, but I’ve been to others), I don’t like this AT ALL. But, my dislike of it – it can even make me FEEL like I didn’t really go to Mass – doesn’t make it not Mass.

Well, this presents a big difficulty for me because I do not (yet) share your presupposition that the Catholic Church is on the correct side of the Schism of 1054. Perhaps you can understand how I’m torn? The drum sets and guitars reflect the fact that the Catholic Church has embraced the music generated by the culture and incorporated that music into its worship. However, the Eastern Orthodox Church continues to keep the culture at bay. And since – for the objective inquirer at least – the Eastern Orthodox Church has just much right as the Catholic Church to claim that it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church hasn’t caved in to the culture in its worship leads to the not unreasonable thought that perhaps the Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against is, in fact, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Lex orandi, lex credendi. It’s quite a powerful argument don’t you think?

I have a GREAT book suggestion for you: The Lamb’s Supper, by Scott Hahn. You’re speaking of the Divine Liturgy being an experience vs the Mass being “something to attend”, and Hahn explains how the Mass really is the Kingdom of God on earth. It’s the one place and time on Earth and in our earthly lives that we actually experience Heaven on Earth, so to speak. He draws a lot from Revelation. At the very least it’s extremely interesting!

I’ve just gotten hold of Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home so that’ll keep me occupied for a while. Eastern Orthodox apologist Clark Carlton didn’t give Hahn very high marks apropos his reason for choosing Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy but if Hahn’s explanation isn’t as feeble and superficial and uninformed as Carlton made it out to be I’ll perhaps go on peruse what Hahn says about the Mass – although since Hahn didn’t convert to Catholicism until 1986 and therefore can’t possibly have any concept of what the pre–conciliar Catholic Church was like, I think I might perhaps be better off looking for an elderly cradle Catholic who is in a position to see the difference between the wheat and the chaff and less interested in putting so much effort into presentation at public appearances. No disrespect to Hahn, mind you. I daresay he’s a genuine conversion.

Thanks ever so much for taking an interest and helping me along on my spiritual journey.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[look3467]

The “bible” (from a word meaning “the books”) was canonized by Pope Damasus I in 382. It was to give the growing Church (the CATHOLIC, or UNIVERSAL Church of Christ) its liturgical roadmap. Remember those spurious “gospels” and “epistles”?>>>Robert

I have no problem with the compilation of books and by or who, the point really is, in the main theme of the whole bible.

In light of that theme, lies the mystery that was revealed to us by Jesus Himself.
Ref: Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
All revelation about who the Father is was given to us via His Son Jesus via demonstration.

Now, as for apostles, priest and teachers ref: Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
There is no reason to deny the hand of God in any of them for the express purpose of educating the weak in spirit.

The Bible, AJ, was never intended, or mentioned by an early Church Father, or stated by Jesus Himself, to be a secret book full of hidden metaphors and riddles for the chosen few initiates like you claim for yourself>>>Robert

A clue that is hidden but revealed to some is found in this verse: Hos 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.
In that verse we see 1. prophets, 2. multiplied visions, 3. used similitudes Is not the whole bible in books written concerning all the above?

Multiplied visions are two words denoting one, multiplication and two picture stories.

In multiplication ref: Dan 7:10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

Can you fully understand what all that multiplication is about? A hidden truth in that?

How about multiple visions? Ref: Dan 4:9 O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.
How many dreams did the king have, multiple? What significance is in all of it?

If you can properly answer all of what they mean and the significances are, then I will agree with you that there are no hidden things in the bible.

It is your choice (as thousands before you) to think that God speaks only to you. This my friend is delusional and indicates a shallow understanding of God;s teaching through His Son and His Church.>>>Robert

My choice? Absolutely!
Listen, when God speaks to us via His Holy Spirit it is not as if we are some prophet or of some great orator, but of a simple and humble soul who seeks the comfort and security of a wonderful and merciful God.

I had questions concerning the state and fate of all humanity who had never heard the gospel, let alone know who God is, and who lived and died without so much as a word of truth fall in their ears.
The answer came to me in my striving for the truth via some rocky roads of travel through various writings, both religious and non religious literature.

The answer was all there in front of me but could not see it for I was not yet ready to receive it.
God allowed me to venture out, and experience what other beliefs were and how they related to God.

To my amazement, He showed me that His love was greater than what mankind gave Him credit for, and that mankind could not understand why God would even save souls who had crucified His Son and or who totally rejected the existence of God.

That in itself is a mystery to some who in their righteous living claim that they are the only ones God loves and could possibly enter heaven.

You’re setting yourself up as a Prophet on par with Mohammed and Joseph Smith and Jim Jones. You need to wake up and try a little humbleness.>>>Robert

I am sorry that you feel that way about my views when my intentions are never to change what people are but to present the word of God in a different light.

To present a God who is merciful to our sinful nature, who in His desire to have many Sons, created us in His image, and subjected us to vanity and in that same vanity rescued us from it by His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Having done that for us, it liberates us to live with the knowledge of good and evil, as in God’s image, in hope.
And hopefully, we should desire to live right by learning through life’s experience to deny the evil that is ever present with in us.

Perhaps now, you might see that I am not making a bit to propagate a religious belief, but to introduce a different view which may aid in understanding for some who struggle to find answers where they are none via normal channels of the church.

What I say is in harmony with the theme that is prevalent throughout the whole bible, and that is that God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son for it.

Ref: John 3:16 and Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[SSTeacher]

But - Catholic doctrine deals with different issues from Biblical scholarship. No matter how orthodox one’s Catholicism, CD does nothing to shed light on questions such as:

• which reading if several is best supported by the available evidence
• whether a commentary attributed to Saint So-&-So was written by him
• whether a text is pseudo-historical or historical
• whether a deity in an OT text came from Syria or from Egypt; or is present in the OT text at all
  There are countless questions of these kinds & more, to which the Teaching Church gives no answers; nor does it intend to need to. It can say the Bible is Christological in its purpose - & does; but that does not tell us anything about (say) whether Psalm 72 was always a single Psalm or a combination of two Psalms. That sort of thing is for the professional scholars - they are the ones with the academic equipment, with the knowledge of detail that enables them to make an intelligent decision on such matters. If we want to know in what respects that or any other Psalm or text in the Bible might be influenced by Assyrian or Egyptian or any other models, the Teaching Church is not the authority on such questions. It’s an authority on other aspects of the Bible, such as its use & character in the Church. But not on critical questions. It leaves those to the scholars.

An example:

• The TC can say Isaiah 9.6 finds its fullest realisation in Christ - while
• the scholars are the ones equipped to compare the titles in it with those of Pharaohs; & to debate whether it is Isaianic in date, & similar questions.
  The Church’s authority can forbid public discussion of CQs - but only among Catholics; it can’t bind other Christians, nor Jews; so if they agree with its positions, that won’t be because it holds & requires those positions.

I agree with all that you’ve rather articulately outlined. However, it seems to me (looking into Catholicism from the outside) that the status of Bible scholars within Catholicism differs somewhat from the status of those outside Catholicism who herald themselves as being under the umbrella of “Biblical Christianity.” I guess that in Catholicism you don’t rely on scholars to supply you with doctrine, do you? And if a scholar did try to do that – say, for example, a Catholic Bible scholar decided that there wasn’t enough biblical support for the doctrine of purgatory and then proceeded to let the world know – isn’t there a mechanism by which he or she could at least be called to account? That’s really my point.

There are, as you rightly point out, countless questions in the technical areas. If Protestant Bible scholars stuck to addressing these technical questions e.g. whether or not Saint Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews and how come the nineteenth chapter of 2 Kings and the thirty–seventh chapter of Isaiah are alike, I’d have less of a difficulty. But that kind of technical stuff isn’t enough for them. No, the target is doctrine. Adjusting it, deleting it, manipulating it, inventing it and ignoring it – all based on what the Bible says. That’s the scenario in Protestantism. And to make matters even more irritating, just about anybody can be a scholar. Is there a scholar’s exam? Not in Protestantism, anyway – hence my formal objection to the situation.

It seems to me that there isn’t one single Christian tenet that hasn’t at some time been questioned by one scholar or another. That’s because in Protestantism, the Holy Spirit goes around telling different Protestants different things. Once one grasps that, the cacophony becomes understandable. But there’s a huge leap from understanding it to being contented with it. That’s why I’m thinking of leaping out of Protestantism altogether.

Perplexedly,
Mick

 

[bookgirl32]

Well, this presents a big difficulty for me because I do not (yet) share your presupposition that the Catholic Church is on the correct side of the Schism of 1054. Perhaps you can understand how I’m torn? The drum sets and guitars reflect the fact that the Catholic Church has embraced the music generated by the culture and incorporated that music into its worship. However, the Eastern Orthodox Church continues to keep the culture at bay. And since – for the objective inquirer at least – the Eastern Orthodox Church has just much right as the Catholic Church to claim that it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church hasn’t caved in to the culture in its worship leads to the not unreasonable thought that perhaps the Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against is, in fact, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Lex orandi, lex credendi. It’s quite a powerful argument don’t you think?:

I get you here, I do. And I do think that the “apologetics” are much more complicated between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, only because they are so much more closely related. I also think that the chance of a reconciliation between the two is MUCH greater than that of Protestantism. I will admittedly say that I am more of an apologist towards the Evangelical Protestant, and could definitely brush up on the issues between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

I’ve just gotten hold of Hahn’s book Rome Sweet Home so that’ll keep me occupied for a while. Eastern Orthodox apologist Clark Carlton didn’t give Hahn very high marks apropos his reason for choosing Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy but if Hahn’s explanation isn’t as feeble and superficial and uninformed as Carlton made it out to be I’ll perhaps go on peruse what Hahn says about the Mass – although since Hahn didn’t convert to Catholicism until 1986 and therefore can’t possibly have any concept of what the pre–conciliar Catholic Church was like, I think I might perhaps be better off looking for an elderly cradle Catholic who is in a position to see the difference between the wheat and the chaff and less interested in putting so much effort into presentation at public appearances. No disrespect to Hahn, mind you. I daresay he’s a genuine conversion.:

Home Sweet Rome is a great read. But it does chronical his conversion in a narrative way, things including how he struggled, what happened in his family, etc. It is also much more geared towards the Evangelical or Fundamentalist (I believe they’re two different things) Protestant. Some of his other books delve much deeper into his academic mindset, which from reading some of your posts it seems you would appreciate these more. I’m not telling you not to read it or talking it down, it just may not give you exactly what you’re looking for from him where I think some of his others will. Reasons to Believe is very good as well.

And, he is by far not the only expert on the subject out there. I suggested The Lamb’s Supper for the content of the book, not necessarily for the conversion story of it’s author.

 

[look3467]

In vain is the endeavor to prove one’s view as a more perfect view, or one that arguably thought to be more correct than all others.

Frustration lies at the door of some who venture out of the norm, such as some who were raised up in the doctrines of the Catholic Church or those raised under the doctrines of predominate denominations.

Seekers are not satisfied with what is the norm unless they are willing to submit to every word of doctrine espoused by said churches and or denominations.

The desire to grow is in the stirring of the Holy Spirit.

Divisions among all the differing beliefs is the best scenario to bring to birth the attribute of God, which is love.

Can we love with a Godly type of love others who have a different view of the same God without condemnation?

There are plenty of differences to argue about, but respect for others views is to give God the Glory He deserves.

God is love: Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Are there any exceptions? …“he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him”…

Peace>>>AJ

 

[SSTeacher]

I get you here, I do. And I do think that the “apologetics” are much more complicated between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, only because they are so much more closely related. I also think that the chance of a reconciliation between the two is MUCH greater than that of Protestantism. I will admittedly say that I am more of an apologist towards the Evangelical Protestant, and could definitely brush up on the issues between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

It’s encouraging that you understand my dilemma and I would say that you are a good apologist for the Catholic Church. It would certainly do no harm for you to acquaint yourself with Orthodoxy (from an apologetics point of view). You might be surprised. Orthodox bishop, Timothy Ware, points out in the introduction to his book about the Eastern Orthodox Church that in the West it’s usual to think of Catholicism and Protestantism as opposite extremes; but to an Orthodox Christian they appear as two sides of the same coin. His Grace suggests that Christians in the West – both Roman and Reformed – generally start by asking the same questions, although they may disagree about the answers. But in Orthodoxy, it is not merely the answers that are different. The questions themselves are not the same as in the West. Thought–provoking, huh?

And I guess that if we pause and reflect, we can see how this view makes good sense. After all, Western Christians have been shaped and influenced by a history about which Orthodoxy knows nothing. Orthodoxy has known no Middle Ages (in the Western sense) and has undergone no Reformation or Counter–Reformation. Orthodox Christians have been affected in only an oblique way by the religious upheaval that transformed Western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

One of the more curious things I discovered when I went a–visiting is that Orthodox Christians stand up to worship. That’s how it was in the Temple in Jerusalem and so the Early Church followed suit. It was apparently the Reformers who turned the emphasis away from the Eucharist and made the main focus the lecture (homily) – hence the introduction of pews. And the Catholic Church apparently copied the Protestants. But there are no pews in Orthodox Churches (it’s not an absolute rule, though) and no musical instruments (usually).

If you’re really interested in brushing up on your understanding of Orthodoxy, I recommend you read Orthodoxy For The Non–Orthodox by John Garvey. He keeps it simple and he also keeps well away from polemics.

Home Sweet Rome is a great read. But it does chronical his conversion in a narrative way, things including how he struggled, what happened in his family, etc. It is also much more geared towards the Evangelical or Fundamentalist (I believe they’re two different things) Protestant. Some of his other books delve much deeper into his academic mindset, which from reading some of your posts it seems you would appreciate these more. I’m not telling you not to read it or talking it down, it just may not give you exactly what you’re looking for from him where I think some of his others will. Reasons to Believe is very good as well.

And, he is by far not the only expert on the subject out there. I suggested The Lamb’s Supper for the content of the book, not necessarily for the conversion story of it’s author.

Thanks for telling me this. I’m serious about my inquiry and I’ll read Reasons to Believe as well as Rome Sweet Home. I hope you have a happy and a holy Christmas.

In Christ,
Mick

 

[Pier]

I haven’t read all the comments, so excuse me if I’m repeating something already said. I’d like to leave a link to an online Catholic Encyclopedia, that I hope you find helpful:

newadvent.org/cathen/

& a link to an online concordance:

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0011/_FA.HTM

EWTN has a wonderful audio library of many of their shows that you can listen to online (one about the great writer of a century ago, G.K. Chesterton, is in my signature ), but I think I’ve left you enough links for now…

God bless you on your continued journey, & welcome!

 

[SSTeacher]

I haven’t read all the comments, so excuse me if I’m repeating something already said. I’d like to leave a link to an online Catholic Encyclopedia, that I hope you find helpful:

newadvent.org/cathen/

& a link to an online concordance:

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0011/_FA.HTM

EWTN has a wonderful audio library of many of their shows that you can listen to online (one about the great writer of a century ago, G.K. Chesterton, is in my signature ), but I think I’ve left you enough links for now…

God bless you on your continued journey, & welcome!

Thank you very much, Pier.

Gratefully,
Mick

 

[Pier]

Thank you very much, Pier.

Gratefully,
Mick

You’re most welcome, Mick.

 

[bookgirl32]

SS,

Just a thought: you are aware that the Roman Catholic Rite is not the only Rite in the Church? Yes, all the rites in communion with the Church acknowledge the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, etc. And the Pope is Roman Catholic, but, again, not all the rites are Roman Catholic.

Just curious. I’m not even fully familiar with all of the rites (Byzantine is one), but I should be.

 

[SSTeacher]

SS,

Just a thought: you are aware that the Roman Catholic Rite is not the only Rite in the Church? Yes, all the rites in communion with the Church acknowledge the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, etc. And the Pope is Roman Catholic, but, again, not all the rites are Roman Catholic.

Just curious. I’m not even fully familiar with all of the rites (Byzantine is one), but I should be.

I must admit that I’m not au fait with the different rites.

Happy Christmas,
Mick

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

But you are right with the rites, correct?

Robert

 

[SSTeacher]

But you are right with the rites, correct?

Robert

Right as rain, Robert, and a very Happy Christmas to you, also.

Festivally,
Mick

 

[look3467]

My Brothers and asisters in Christ: May the Peace of God be the source of strenght in you all commencing now, today, and forever more as we celebrate this happy occasion of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

Merry Christmas!

Peace>>>AJ

 

[SSTeacher]

Hello AJ,

In vain is the endeavor to prove one’s view as a more perfect view, or one that arguably thought to be more correct than all others.

Well, here you’ve alighted on the modus operandi of some Protestants. Whereas Catholics continually point to the teaching of the Catholic Church, Protestants frequently point to the version of the Bible that they favor together with the interpretation that they’ve gradually learned. So it seems to me that the Catholic approach in essence is, “The reason you should see this as truth is because the Catholic Church teaches it,” which is in stark contrast to the Protestant approach, which is to fall back on the subjective idea that, “You should believe this because I do.”

Frustration lies at the door of some who venture out of the norm, such as some who were raised up in the doctrines of the Catholic Church or those raised under the doctrines of predominate denominations.

That’s rather general and it’s no good being general, as Napoleon said in 1815. Mother Teresa was raised up in the doctrines of the Catholic Church and most objective observers would agree that she was a godly person. Apologies to Christopher Hitchens, en passant.

Seekers are not satisfied with what is the norm unless they are willing to submit to every word of doctrine espoused by said churches and or denominations.

Sound doctrine is pivotal for everybody, not just seekers.

The desire to grow is in the stirring of the Holy Spirit.

I agree, provided that the desire isn’t to grow rich.

Divisions among all the differing beliefs is the best scenario to bring to birth the attribute of God, which is love.

I respectfully disagree. I suggest that unity, rather than division, is the best scenario.

Can we love with a Godly type of love others who have a different view of the same God without condemnation?

I guess it depends upon who one includes in the “we.” For example, I shouldn’t have thought Titus Oates or Sir Richard Rich gave much thought to the idea of agapē love.

There are plenty of differences to argue about, but respect for others views is to give God the Glory He deserves.

I respectfully disagree once more. No thinking person ought to respect views that are silly, dangerous or wicked.

God is love: Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Are there any exceptions? …“he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him”…

Peace>>>AJ

There’s that selective quoting again. Please allow me to provide some balance:

2 Thessalonians 1:6:
God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you.

Biblically,
Mick

 

[djconklin]

Protestants frequently point to the version of the Bible that they favor together with the interpretation that they’ve gradually learned

I use the Greek and exegesis.

 

[look3467]

Well, here you’ve alighted on the modus operandi of some Protestants. Whereas Catholics continually point to the teaching of the Catholic Church, Protestants frequently point to the version of the Bible that they favor together with the interpretation that they’ve gradually learned. So it seems to me that the Catholic approach in essence is, “The reason you should see this as truth is because the Catholic Church teaches it,” which is in stark contrast to the Protestant approach, which is to fall back on the subjective idea that, “You should believe this because I do.”>>>SSTeacher

Truly spoken correctly! I have no argument against that.

I also have no reason to change any body’s understandings in their espoused religious beliefs and or practices.

What I present is a different picture of the relationship between God and mankind not seen normally because of the based beliefs and practices of Religious institutions.

Because I understand that God created a creature (vessel) in perfection, the creature (vessel) became marred in the Potter’s hands.

The Potter than reshapes, remolds the marred vessel: Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

The first vessel was marred (First Adam and after his kind, fleshly) and again, “he made it again another vessel”(Second Adam Jesus and all after His kind, spiritual).

That explanation is the whole of the relationship between God and mankind.

God’s works are done! In the first Adam God saw that all was good and He rested, as in finished.

In the second Adam, Jesus’ works are done also,as He says “It is finished”.

Mankind had absolutely nothing to do with God’s works!

Separate God’s works from mankind’s and you will see the salvation of all mankind.

Now, mankind; now has as a result of Jesus, without penalty, of eternal damnation, the freedom to choose good and or evil at one’s own expanse.

For our works, whether good or evil, are of no heavenly consequence but are accountable only to the flesh.

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

In that verse are the two Adams identified, wages of sin is the flesh and the gift is the spiritual.

**First Adam **brought life and death to both body and soul.
Second Adam brought life by rebirth of the souls’ spirit while the wages of sin are relinquished by death of the body.

Hence, Jesus commanded that we should love our neighbors as He loved us, neighbors included.

Makes us all brothers and sisters but only understood in the light of God’s word of His works and not ours.

This may be hard to understand, but frankly, apart from all the religious indoctrination, it’s really simple.

So simple, in fact, that if we knew nothing but loving our neighbor, we would comply with God’s requirements of His Ten Commandments in Jesus.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[SSTeacher]

Truly spoken correctly! I have no argument against that. I also have no reason to change any body’s understandings in their espoused religious beliefs and or practices. What I present is a different picture of the relationship between God and mankind not seen normally because of the based beliefs and practices of Religious institutions. Because I understand that God created a creature (vessel) in perfection, the creature (vessel) became marred in the Potter’s hands. The Potter than reshapes, remolds the marred vessel: Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

The first vessel was marred (First Adam and after his kind, fleshly) and again, “he made it again another vessel”(Second Adam Jesus and all after His kind, spiritual). That explanation is the whole of the relationship between God and mankind. God’s works are done!

In the first Adam God saw that all was good and He rested, as in finished. In the second Adam, Jesus’ works are done also,as He says “It is finished”. Mankind had absolutely nothing to do with God’s works! Separate God’s works from mankind’s and you will see the salvation of all mankind. Now, mankind; now has as a result of Jesus, without penalty, of eternal damnation, the freedom to choose good and or evil at one’s own expanse. For our works, whether good or evil, are of no heavenly consequence but are accountable only to the flesh. …“For the wages of sin is death”…Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In that verse are the two Adams identified, wages of sin is the flesh and the gift is the spiritual. **First Adam **brought life and death to both body and soul. Second Adam brought life by rebirth of the souls’ spirit while the wages of sin are relinquished by death of the body. Hence, Jesus commanded that we should love our neighbors as He loved us, neighbors included. Makes us all brothers and sisters but only understood in the light of God’s word of His works and not ours.

This may be hard to understand, but frankly, apart from all the religious indoctrination, it’s really simple. So simple, in fact, that if we knew nothing but loving our neighbor, we would comply with God’s requirements of His Ten Commandments in Jesus.

Peace>>>AJ

Whatever you say, AJ.

Grace and peace,
Mick