Catholic convert/revert. Former Nazarene, Presbyterian (PCA). Married 46 yrs. Father of two, one disabled w/CP. Grandpa. Vietnam Vet
Joined October 2021
- Tweets59.7K
- Following107
- Followers1.8K
- Likes21K
Pinned Tweet
๐๐จ๐ฐ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฏ๐๐?
From Scripture and the teachings of Jesus:
By ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก ๐
๐๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ค๐ฌ ๐๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก ๐๐จ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ง๐, ๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ก๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ญ ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ง๐
Godโs grace initiates, enables, and sustains our salvation. He calls us to respond freely, to live in the grace we receive, and to persevere with his help until death. When God justifies us, he truly gives us new life in Christ. That life can grow through grace-enabled obedience and charity, be lost through mortal sin, and be restored through repentance and reconciliation.
๐. ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐จ๐
God takes the first step. His grace moves the sinner to turn toward him, and the person can freely welcome or resist that grace. In an adultโs conversion, faith is the beginning and foundation of justification. Moved by grace, the person comes to believe God, hope in his mercy, begin to love him, repent of sin, and resolve to amend his life. Every part of that response depends on Godโs prior help. Initial justification is his free gift.
๐. ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ค๐๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ
In justification, God forgives our sins and renews us inwardly. He gives us sanctifying grace, brings us into communion with Christ, and makes us his adopted children. We receive faith, hope, and charity, and the inward renewal in which we are called to grow begins here.
Baptism is the ordinary means by which we enter this new life. An adult approaches Baptism with faith and repentance, both already made possible by grace. The righteousness received (Not declared) in Baptism is a gift won for us by Christ.
๐. ๐๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก ๐๐๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฏ๐
Once justified, we are called to keep Christโs commandments and put our faith into practice through love. The Holy Spirit enables these good works, and we freely cooperate with him in doing them.
The Council of Trent teaches that the good works we do in grace and charity truly preserve and increase the righteousness we have received. They are fruits of grace, and God also uses them to deepen our life in Christ. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification likewise explains that, in Catholic teaching, good works made possible by grace and the Holy Spirit contribute to growth in grace and deepen communion with Christ.
๐. ๐๐จ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ฐ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ญ
A person who has truly been justified can lose sanctifying grace through mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal, it must involve grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Venial sin wounds charity while leaving the person in the state of grace.
For a baptized Catholic who falls into mortal sin, sacramental confession is the ordinary means by which God restores the life of grace. Perfect contrition, which arises from love of God above all things, can obtain forgiveness even before confession when it includes the firm resolve to confess as soon as possible.
๐. ๐๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ ๐๐จ๐โ๐ฌ ๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฉ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ง๐
Initial justification gives us a real beginning in Christ. Final perseverance means dying in Godโs grace. It is itself a gift for which we pray, and we cooperate with Godโs help by living in faith and charity and returning to him in repentance when we fall. We depend on his grace at our first turning toward him and at our last breath.
๐. ๐๐ก๐ ๐ ๐จ๐๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐๐จ๐
Those who die in Godโs grace and friendship are assured of eternal salvation. If they still need purification, God purifies them before they enter the fullness of heaven. There they enjoy the beatific vision, seeing God face to face. To die in unrepented mortal sin is to die separated from God and forfeit that communion.
๐๐จ๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฌ, ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ค๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ก๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ. (Not merely declaring us righteous or clothing us with fake righteousness while we remain corrupt). The good works he enables us to do in charity truly preserve and increase the righteousness he has given us. From the first stirring of faith to final perseverance, the whole life of salvation depends on his grace, and our free cooperation with that grace truly matters.
Rick Miller retweeted
Evangelical gets crushed by Grok. Apparently for the 1000th time. ๐คฃ
(Even the โlater theological inferenceโ doesnโt work).
Regurgitating the same refuted claim over & over is NOT an argument:
SIXTEEN reasons why the Evangelicalsโ go-to verse to justify โSola Scripturaโ absolutely fails:
(2 Tim. 3:16โ17: โAll Scripture is God-breathed and is usefulโฆthat the man of God may be made perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work.โ)
โข โALLโ in the original Greek is โeach & every [book]โ*. Obviously, there is no single book of the Bible that is complete, sufficient, or the sole infallible rule of faith.
โข โUSEFULโ is just thatโuseful. Not complete, sufficient, or the sole infallible rule of faith.
โข โMAN OF GODโ: which โman of Godโ? Whoโs definition? The โfaith aloneโ guy, or the โfaith plus Commandmentsโ guy? The โno baptismโ guy? Water baptism? Infant baptism? Baptismal regeneration? Etc.
โข โMADE PERFECTโ: According to James 1:4, itโs NOT Scripture by which weโre made perfect, but patience: โLet patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect & entire, wanting nothing.โ So it canโt be Scripture alone.
โข โTHOROUGHLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORKโ: obviously Scripture is not the only thing he needs for this. He also needs grace, holiness, the charisms of the Holy Spirit, etc., which you donโt get solely by reading Scripture.
โข And โEQUIPPEDโ isnโt enough. You can equip a soldier with a uniform, a helmet, gun, ammunition, & grenade, but that doesnโt mean he knows military strategy, how to fight, etc.
โข Notice that NOWHERE in the verse does the word โonlyโ ever appear.
โข In v. 15 Paul says heโs only referring to the Old Testament.
โข Paul never refers to 2 Timothy as Scripture, so it canโt be used to authenticate itself.
โข Paulโs oral teaching was inspired by God (1 Thess 2:13). This inspired oral teaching was therefore infallible. So Timothy had another infallible source to draw on to help make him โthoroughly equipped for every good work.โ So, according to the principle of infallibility, Paul cannot be teaching Sola Scriptura in 2 Tim 3:16โ17.
โข Peter refers to Paulโs letters as scripture (2 Peter), but Peter died 2 years before Paul wrote 2 Tim, so 2 Peter canโt apply.
โข It obviously canโt be complete, sufficient, or the sole infallible rule of faith because those Christians living before the New Testament was written were still obliged to accept the oral teaching of the Christian faith that wasnโt found in the Old Testament Scriptures, & nowhere in the Bible does it say that everything that was taught orally by the Apostles made it into the Bible, especially since most of the Apostles never wrote a single word of Scripture.
โข Which is why Paul said, โTherefore, brethren, stand fast & hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word [oral], or by our epistle [written]. Nowhere in the Bible does Paul or anyone else say that every oral teaching would eventually make it into the Bible.
โข And Scripture CANโT be complete because John specifically SAID it wasnโtโ3 TIMES: โI had many things to write unto thee: but I would not by ink & pen write to thee. But I hope speedily to see thee, & we will speak mouth to mouth.โ (3 John 1:13; also 2 John 1:12; John 21:25). Nowhere does John document that every word he told these disciples made it into Revelation, or even his Gospel.
โข Since 2 Tim 3:16-17 is one of the only places St. Paul specifically addresses the nature, purpose, & effect of Scripture, this wouldโve been the perfect opportunity for him to make the exclusive use of Scripture, then or in the future, perfectly clear to Timothyโbut he didnโt.
โข If 2 Tim 3:16-17 = โSola Scripturaโ to us, it wouldโve had to have conveyed Sola Scriptura to Timothy. It canโt mean one thing to us & a different thing to Timothy. Which wouldโve meant Paul was instructing him to ignore everything else he was taught orally thatโs not in Scripture. But we know Paul didnโt think that because in 2 Tim 2:2 Paul instructed Timothy to receive his oral teaching, keep it, & pass it to his disciples who would pass it down to theirs.
โThe fundamental question is not whether the Church should welcome people who experience same-sex attraction. Of course she should. Every human being possesses an inviolable dignity, and every soul is precious to Christ. The question is whether that welcome involves inviting people into the transforming truth of the Gospel, including its moral demands, or gradually accommodating the Gospel to contemporary assumptions about sexuality.
Christian unity is not achieved by declaring difficult questions settled, suppressing legitimate objections or treating fidelity to established doctrine as an obstacle to pastoral progress. Authentic unity necessarily presupposes truth.โ
There is no doubt that Fr James Martin's increasingly fashionable appeals for unity within the Church are profoundly disingenuous. As Austin Ruse observes in this excellent article for Crisis Magazine, we are apparently expected to believe that the argument over Catholic teaching on homosexuality is effectively over, that the progressive position has prevailed, and that faithful Catholics should simply accept the new reality and move on. But notice the extraordinary asymmetry here. Orthodox Catholics are encouraged to stop arguing in the interests of unity, while the campaign to reinterpret Catholic sexual morality continues unabated.
Consider Martin's own Outreach ministry, which recently published an alternative version of the Confiteor for LGBTQ Catholics, recasting repentance principally in terms of prejudice, discrimination and social injustice, and replacing the invocation of Our Lady and the saints with an appeal to spiritual ancestors and 'queer saints'. This is not an authorised liturgical change, but it is a revealing illustration of the theological direction in which this movement is travelling.
The fundamental question is not whether the Church should welcome people who experience same-sex attraction. Of course she should. Every human being possesses an inviolable dignity, and every soul is precious to Christ. The question is whether that welcome involves inviting people into the transforming truth of the Gospel, including its moral demands, or gradually accommodating the Gospel to contemporary assumptions about sexuality.
Christian unity is not achieved by declaring difficult questions settled, suppressing legitimate objections or treating fidelity to established doctrine as an obstacle to pastoral progress. Authentic unity necessarily presupposes truth.
Indeed, the most troubling aspect of Martin's approach is the suggestion that charity and doctrinal clarity are somehow competing obligations. They are not. A Church that ceases to call people to conversion has not become more welcoming. It has forgotten what it is welcoming them into.
Ruse is right to insist that the debate is far from over. The question is whether those responsible for defending the Church's teaching are prepared to engage in it.
crisismagazine.com/opinion/fโฆ
2
38
Fr. James Martin Wants You to Believe the Debate Is All Over crisismagazine.com/opinion/fโฆ via @CrisisMag
22
Rick Miller retweeted
๐จThis is the Low Church Protestant Achilles Heel๐จ
If you ask @needGod_net or @KellyPowersBPA what criteria they employ to show that their reading of Scripture is accurate while those of Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc. is invalid, they have no answer for it. And what will happen? They will get very grouchy and block you. They never want to leave the arena of their interpretation because it is where they feel like gladiators. If you challenge their interpretive statetments against the Fathers, they must leave the arena and be faced with the reality that they are not gladiators, but feckless spectators.
Rick Miller retweeted
The shocking departure of a former European SSPX district superior, just months after the Societyโs schismatic episcopal consecrations, looks like a devastating indictment of the direction it has taken. But it is where he has chosen to go that makes this development truly extraordinary...and raises some profoundly uncomfortable questions for the SSPX leadership.
Fr Patrick Duverger, formerly the SSPX district superior for Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, has left the Society and been welcomed into a traditional Latin Mass community served by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), under the authority of the local diocesan bishop. His successor, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, was among the four men consecrated bishops by the SSPX in July, without the authorisation of Pope Leo XIV.
Consider the historical irony. In 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre's illicit episcopal consecrations precipitated the departure of priests who founded the FSSP precisely because they believed that fidelity to the traditional liturgy could not justify separation from Rome. Thirty-eight years later, following another set of episcopal consecrations, a former SSPX district superior has found a home in the very Fraternity born of that original rupture. We do not yet know whether the July consecrations prompted Duverger's decision, and it would be premature to suggest an exodus. But his departure follows that of another former European district superior, Fr Firmin Udressy, who left in 2024 after more than twenty years of priestly service. Udressy's own explanation was revealing: he had come to desire a priesthood exercised in genuine communion with the Church's hierarchy and the universal Church.
Let's be clear, this is not a dispute between those who love tradition and those who despise it, these are priests formed by the SSPX, deeply attached to the Catholic inheritance, who have nevertheless chosen to exercise their priesthood within the Church's recognised structures. Surely therein lies the uncomfortable ecclesiological question the SSPX cannot indefinitely evade: at what point does an extraordinary response to a crisis become a permanent alternative to the Church's own authority?
Catholic tradition is not a possession to be defended against the Church, nor is communion with Peter some optional administrative arrangement that can be suspended until Rome becomes sufficiently agreeable. Apostolic tradition and apostolic communion belong together.
There are legitimate grievances about the treatment of traditional Catholics, and Rome must take them seriously. But the failures of ecclesiastical authority cannot become a justification for establishing a parallel ecclesial existence.
The tragedy would be for a movement founded to preserve Catholic tradition to lose sight of something essential to that tradition: the Church is not merely where the ancient liturgy is celebrated, but where the Catholic faith is professed cum Petro et sub Petro โ with Peter and under Peter.
Rick Miller retweeted
"People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway. If you are honest, people may cheat you Be honest anyway.
If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.
The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good. Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway.
For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway."
- Mother Teresa of Calcutta
Hereโs a Catholic reading of the ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ช๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ช๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐
Matthew 22:1โ14
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ.
He prepares the feast, sends the messengers, welcomes the guests, and judges them. Salvation begins with Godโs initiative and generosity. He provides what we need to share His life.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐.
The wedding celebrates His union with His Church. Through Christ, God calls us into communion with Himself, beginning here and reaching its fulfillment in heaven.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฑโ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น ๐๐ผ ๐๐ฎ๐น๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป.
The king freely invites the guests. Everything begins with his provision. Godโs grace enables our response, and the invitation calls for an actual response.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ฑโ๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ๐.
They represent the prophets, apostles, and those sent to proclaim Godโs invitation. Their task is to bring people to Christ.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐น๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฎ๐ป๐.
Historically, the invitation comes first to Israel. The refusing guests represent those who reject Godโs messengers and His Son. Their privileged position carries responsibility. Each must respond personally.
๐ง๐ต๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ผ ๐ด๐ผ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฟ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐บ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ฝ๐๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐น๐ฑ๐น๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐ฑ.
They hear the invitation and disregard it. They represent people whose attachment to possessions, work, or personal pursuits leads them to refuse Godโs call.
๐ง๐ต๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ผ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ฑ.
Their rejection becomes persecution. The kingโs punishment shows that rejecting God and mistreating His messengers brings judgment.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ดโ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐บ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ด๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐.
The destruction of the city points historically toward Jerusalemโs destruction. It also warns that persistent rejection of God has consequences.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ด๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ ๐ด๐ฎ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐นโ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น.
The invitation extends to the Gentiles and people of every condition. Both bad and good are gathered. Whatever their past, God calls them to repentance, faith, and a transformed life.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ถ๐น๐น๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ต๐ฎ๐น๐น ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ต.
Believers with different spiritual conditions are gathered together. Some live in Godโs friendship. Others belong to the community while living in serious sin. The king examines each guest.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ด๐ฎ๐ฟ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐.
It signifies the grace-given love of God and neighbor that animates living faith. Godโs saving grace transforms us and enables the obedience and works of mercy to which He calls us.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ถ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ด๐ฎ๐ฟ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ผ ๐น๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐.
In this Catholic reading, he has entered the Church through baptism and faith, yet comes before God without the love necessary for salvation. Faith can remain in someone who has lost sanctifying grace through mortal sin. The story leaves his earlier spiritual history unspecified.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ดโ๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ด๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐.
God sees the true condition of every person. The attendants execute His sentence, and the outer darkness signifies final condemnation.
๐ง๐ต๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ผ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฐ๐น๐ผ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ผ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ผ๐ฑโ๐ ๐ด๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ.
They receive His invitation, respond through grace, and are found in His friendship at judgment. Their salvation is Godโs gift through Christ, received in a living faith that works through love and perseveres to the end.
โFor many are called, but few are chosen.โ
1) The Bible goes further that all that the Father gives the Son believe. We see this also in Acts 13:48.
2) The same example is used in Romans. And God uses means to accomplish his will, including warnings.
3) It was common for Jews to provide the garment. The man never believed
1
125
Rick Miller retweeted
1) The Bible goes further that all that the Father gives the Son believe. We see this also in Acts 13:48.
2) The same example is used in Romans. And God uses means to accomplish his will, including warnings.
3) It was common for Jews to provide the garment. The man never believed
Rick Miller retweeted
Stay close to Jesus โ there is nothing to fear! St. Padre Pio, ora pro nobis!
โLeo's warning goes straight to the heart of the problem. Genuine pastoral care cannot mean finding sufficiently compassionate-sounding reasons to excuse what we already recognise as wrong. Mercy does not abolish moral truth, and the circumstances that diminish someone's culpability do not transform an objectively immoral act into a moral one. The task of a pastor is to help souls encounter Christ and respond to His grace, not to provide theological cover for avoiding the demands of the Gospel.โ
This was interesting! Warning against the temptation to justify conduct that we know to be wrong, Leo spoke of finding โpastoral reasonsโ for doing so, actually raising his hands to make inverted commas around the expression. It was a small gesture, but potentially a very significant one.
For much of the Francis pontificate, the language of pastoral discernment became entangled in controversies over whether established moral principles could effectively be set aside in particular circumstances. Critics of Amoris Laetitia, especially, warned that pastoral accompaniment risked becoming a justification for accommodation rather than a genuine invitation to conversion. Whatever Francis himself intended, that ambiguity has had real consequences for the Church.
Leo's warning goes straight to the heart of the problem. Genuine pastoral care cannot mean finding sufficiently compassionate-sounding reasons to excuse what we already recognise as wrong. Mercy does not abolish moral truth, and the circumstances that diminish someone's culpability do not transform an objectively immoral act into a moral one. The task of a pastor is to help souls encounter Christ and respond to His grace, not to provide theological cover for avoiding the demands of the Gospel.
Of course, Leo was speaking about the examination of conscience rather than explicitly revisiting the controversies of the previous pontificate. He also spoke warmly of Francis. Nevertheless, his choice of words, and that unmistakable gesture, seem to reflect a welcome recovery of moral clarity.
Perhaps we are witnessing something important in this pontificate: a quiet but deliberate reassertion that pastoral sensitivity must serve the truth rather than become an alternative to it.
The Church does not become more merciful by making sin easier to justify. She becomes more merciful by helping sinners find the grace to overcome it.
Rick Miller retweeted
๐จ The Hamas representative in Congress, @ChrisVanHollen , hates Jews so much that he cannot even comprehend that undermining the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship could hurt America far more than Israel. But as we all know, morons don't understand the consequences of their actions until they feel the pain themselves. So go ahead, Senator. Do it! Israel ultimately benefits, while America risks losing access to critical Israeli defense technology, intelligence, and innovation. And frankly, Iโve already given up on Marylandโs Jewish community uniting to unseat this Jew hater. And I suspect Van Hollen knows that all too well.
BREAKING @jewishinsider: "Van Hollen leads push to remove U.S.-Israel cooperation provisions from defense funding bill"
"The Maryland senator, who is mulling a bid for Senate majority leader, is being joined by 11 other Democrats on the effort"
jewishinsider.com/2026/11/vaโฆ
Rick Miller retweeted
Former New York State Supreme Court justice will become a Catholic priest at age 67. Ernest Hart previously served as a deputy commissioner of the NYPD, an attorney, and a professor at Columbia University.
Rick Miller retweeted
Pope Leo XIV has just offered a rather important clarification of what authentic interreligious dialogue actually means and the contrast with Pope Francis' controversial remarks in Singapore is difficult to ignore.
In September 2024, addressing young people from different religious traditions in Singapore, Pope Francis declared that all religions are paths to God, comparing them to different languages expressing the divine. His remarks provoked considerable controversy, not because Catholics object to respectful dialogue with other religions, but because the analogy appeared to place fundamentally different religious claims on the same theological footing.
Yesterday, addressing Christian leaders and representatives of other religions in Buenos Aires, Leo XIV approached the same subject rather differently.
He began by explicitly professing faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man, acknowledged the Church's spiritual relationship with the Jewish people, and affirmed the respect owed to whatever is holy and true in other religious traditions, in accordance with Nostra Aetate.
But his most significant intervention came when he invoked St John Paul II's teaching that genuine religious dialogue must take place โwithout relativism or syncretism of any kindโ, and should deepen rather than diminish the obligation to bear witness and proclaim.
That distinction is absolutely fundamental.
Catholicism does not teach that other religions contain nothing true or good, nor that God's grace is confined to the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. The Church explicitly recognises elements of truth and holiness outside her visible communion and acknowledges that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ may nevertheless attain salvation through His grace.
But this is categorically different from suggesting that the world's religions are simply equivalent routes to God. The Catholic claim is not merely that Christianity offers one particularly helpful spiritual vocabulary among many. It is that God has definitively revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, whose Incarnation, death and Resurrection are the source of salvation for humanity.
The distinction matters because genuine dialogue presupposes that the participants actually believe something. If religious differences are ultimately reduced to alternative cultural expressions of an identical spiritual reality, dialogue risks becoming an exercise in mutual reassurance rather than a serious encounter between people committed to truth.
Indeed, there is something profoundly disrespectful about treating another person's religious convictions as interchangeable with one's own. Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians do not merely speak different languages about precisely the same theological propositions. Their beliefs contain real and sometimes irreconcilable differences, which deserve to be understood rather than politely dissolved.
Francis' defenders were right to emphasise that his remarks arose in an informal encounter intended to encourage friendship rather than theological confrontation. But pastoral context does not remove the responsibility to speak with doctrinal clarity, particularly when addressing young people who may have little understanding of what distinguishes Christianity from other faiths.
Leo, significantly, did not repudiate Francis. Quite the opposite: he explicitly praised his predecessor's commitment to dialogue and concluded with a prayer taken from Fratelli Tutti. Yet he situated that commitment within a more clearly articulated Catholic understanding of revelation, witness and proclamation.
This is precisely what the Church needs. Not a retreat into religious hostility, nor an accommodation which obscures the uniqueness of Christ, but the confidence to recognise truth wherever it is found while remaining faithful to the fullness of truth entrusted to the Church.
Dialogue is not the suspension of evangelisation. Properly understood, it is one of the places where authentic Christian witness becomes possible.
The Church can respect every person, recognise genuine goodness in other religious traditions and cooperate generously for the common good without pretending that the Great Commission has somehow been superseded.
That is the theological clarity which Leo's remarks help to recover, and it deserves considerably more attention than it has received.
Dear Robert,
Thank you for your kind words about my military service and your concern for my well-being. I appreciate your years in the Postal Service, too. I believe you are writing because you care about my soul, and I ask you to recognize that same sincerity in my reply.
You urge me to question what I have been taught. I agree that we should examine our beliefs. In fact, I became Catholic as an adult after examining the Protestant beliefs I previously held. My conviction that Catholicism is true grew through that examination.
๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฏ๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐ก๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐ก๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ก ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐๐ฏ๐ ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ก ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐๐ฆ๐.
That claim deserves examination. Describing Catholic beliefs as โdoctrines of menโ assumes the very thing you need to demonstrate.
You rightly recount humanityโs repeated disobedience. But those examples also show people rejecting authorities God actually appointed. Israelโs failures did not prove that Moses lacked divine authority. Judasโs betrayal did not invalidate the apostlesโ commission. Likewise, the sins of Church leaders cannot by themselves settle whether Christ established their teaching office or promised to preserve His Church.
The question is what Jesus established and promised.
He told Peter, โOn this rock I will build my church,โ and entrusted him with the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:18โ19). He commissioned the apostles to teach everything He commanded, promising His presence until the close of the age (Matt. 28:18โ20). That promise extends far beyond the apostlesโ lifetimes. ๐๐ก๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ก๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ก ๐ญ๐จ๐๐๐ฒ, ๐๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐ค, ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐๐. His continuing presence sustains her mission to teach His truth and make disciples of all nations until He returns. He told His appointed messengers, โHe who hears you hears meโ (Luke 10:16). That authority continues today through the apostlesโ successors. ๐๐ก๐๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ก๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ก ๐๐๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ก๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฅ๐๐ฌ, ๐ฐ๐ ๐ก๐๐๐ซ ๐๐ข๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก ๐ก๐๐ซ. Receiving that teaching is an act of trust in the Lord who authorized her to speak in His name.
๐๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ก๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญโ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ก๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ก.
Your appeal to Godโs wisdom cuts both ways. An all-knowing God knew that Christians would disagree about biblical interpretation. Scripture itself shows Him providing apostles, pastors, and teachers, and an authoritative resolution of a doctrinal dispute at Jerusalem (Acts 15). Paul calls the Church โthe pillar and bulwark of the truthโ (1 Tim. 3:15).
You encourage everyone to examine Scripture personally. Catholics should do so. But sincere personal examination produces conflicting conclusions among Christians who all claim to follow the Bible. Your interpretation also requires examination. Calling it โGodโs Wordโ does not establish that your understanding of it is correct.
Nor does Scripture condemn every tradition. Jesus condemns traditions that nullify Godโs commandments (as the Pharisees did regarding the Corban). Paul commands Christians to old to the traditions taught by the apostles, (These are divine/Sacred Apostolic Traditions, not the traditions of men) whether orally or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15). We must distinguish apostolic teaching from human inventions.
Regarding the Bible, God inspired its books. The Church received, preserved, transmitted, and discerned which writings belonged to the canon. That history involved disputes and developed over time. Catholic faith does not require pretending otherwise.
Tyndaleโs treatment deserves an honest acknowledgment, too. His translation was prohibited, and he was condemned for heresy (not just for translating) and executed in 1536. I can recognize the wrong of persecuting people over religious beliefs and appreciate his contribution to English Scripture. His suffering, however, does not establish that his theology was correct or that Christ never gave His Church teaching authority. Those questions require their own evidence.
On salvation, we share much of what you affirm. Christโs sacrifice is sufficient. Salvation is Godโs gift. We cannot earn the grace that brings us to justification. The Catechism explicitly teaches this.
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ก๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ฌ๐ค๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ฏ๐๐ฌ.
Salvation is not simply a one-time event. It begins with justification, continues throughout the believerโs life in sanctification, and reaches its fulfillment in eternal life as we persevere in Godโs grace.
Since God created us anew in Christ for good works that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10), we are commanded to do those good works. These are not works we can boast about as though they originated in us independently of God. They are the very works His grace enables us to accomplish, fulfilling the purpose for which He created us anew in Christ.
At the Last Judgment, we will all be held accountable for our deeds, including whether we actually performed the good works of mercy Christ commanded (Matt. 25:31โ46).
Jesus commands repentance, baptism, obedience, and perseverance. Paul describes faith working through love (Gal. 5:6). Even our ability to respond comes from grace. Depending on Christ means obeying His commands through the grace He supplies. We cannot claim to trust Him while refusing what He commands, for He asks, โWhy do you call me โLord, Lord,โ and not do what I tell you?โ (Luke 6:46).
Your earlier argument still needs to account for Paulโs words. He addresses people who had received the Spirit, (Saved Christians) then tells those seeking justification through the law, following the Judaizersโ insistence on circumcision, that they are โsevered from Christโ and have โfallen away from graceโ (Gal. 5:4).(Gal. 3:2โ3; 5:4). Appealing to Godโs faithfulness does not explain away that warning. God remains faithful, and His warnings are part of His faithful care for us.
You ask whether I trust Godโs Word or manโs. I trust Jesus Christ, including what He says about His Church. Catholic teaching itself places the Churchโs teaching office at the service of Godโs Word.
Robert, I welcome your invitation to examine my beliefs. I ask you to apply that same examination to your assumption that accepting the Catholic Churchโs authority means departing from Christ. ๐๐ ๐๐ก๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐๐๐๐ก, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ข๐ฆ.
Rick
Dear Rick,
First, thank you for your service to our country. I sincerely hope you are in good health, both physically and mentally, knowing that your time in Vietnam may have left lasting scars. I was never in the military; my years of service were spent in the Postal Service.
Rick, I ask you to consider something that could change the very way you understand God.
One of mankind's greatest tragedies is not simply that people believe what is false, but that so many are unwilling even to consider that what they have been taught might be wrong. People inherit religious beliefs, defend them throughout their lives, and sometimes go to their graves never questioning whether those doctrines truly came from God or from men.
My message is not directed at Catholics alone. It is for EVERYONEwho places unquestioning confidence in a religious system rather than personally examining God's Word. My prayer is that someone, somewhere, will have the courage to question what they have always accepted as truth.
Have you ever considered how often mankind has chosen to believe a lie rather than listen to God Himself?
We profess to believe in an ALL-KNOWING GOD, who knows the beginning from the end, yet so often our religious explanations seem to diminish His infinite wisdom. God knows every jot and tittle of His Word. He knows the heart of every person who has ever lived and every person yet to be born. Why, then, do we so readily trust man's interpretation of God without examining what God Himself has said?
Consider the very beginning of mankind.
Adam and Eve enjoyed something we can scarcely imagine. They walked in the Garden of Eden, enjoying fellowship with their Creator. They could hear His voice! Yet when Satan approached with a lie, they chose to believe the serpent rather than obey the very God who had given them life.
Think about that. Even those who enjoyed fellowship with God Himself were persuaded to question His Word!
And has mankind changed?
Pharaoh witnessed God's mighty power, yet hardened his heart. The Israelites experienced miraculous deliverance, yet turned to idols. Generation after generation, people rejected God's instructions while embracing what was contrary to His will.
Consider Noah. Of all those living in his day, only EIGHT SOULS were preserved through the Flood. What an extraordinary demonstration of both God's judgment and His faithfulness! Would we not expect such an event to leave mankind with an everlasting determination to obey Him?
Yet what followed?
God commanded mankind to multiply and fill the earth, but eventually people gathered together to build the Tower of Babel, seeking to make a name for themselves rather than humbly following His purpose.
Do you see the pattern? From Eden to Babel, from Pharaoh to the worship of idols, mankind has repeatedly preferred its own wisdom over the wisdom of God.
And now, after thousands of years of human rebellion and deception, are we supposed to believe that mankind suddenly became incapable of corrupting God's truth simply because religious institutions claimed divine authority?
Look at the countless religions, denominations, doctrines, and cults throughout the world. They cannot all be correct when their teachings contradict one another. Yet each has followers convinced that theirs is the truth.
Should that not cause every sincere believer to STOP and ask, "Am I following God's Word, or am I following what other people have taught me to believe?"
Consider the Catholic Church's claim concerning its role in bringing us the Bible. I encourage you to examine the actual history of Scripture, its preservation, and its translation. The history is far more complicated than many people realize. There were times when church authorities opposed unauthorized translations and punished those who challenged their control over religious teaching.
Think of William Tyndale, who was willing to sacrifice his very life so that ordinary people, even the humble PLOWBOY, could read and understand the Word of God for themselves.
Why would anyone have to risk his life merely to place God's precious Word into the hands of common people?
That is a question worth considering very seriously.
And here is what I find most beautiful about our ALL-KNOWING, ALL-LOVING GOD.
God knew mankind would fail Him. He knew our weakness, our pride, our rebellious hearts, and our susceptibility to deception. Yet He made His plan of Salvation so wonderfully simple that even the humblest person could understand it.
What God made SIMPLE for us required the GREATEST SACRIFICE from Him.
He gave His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who knew no sin, to suffer and die in our place. We cannot begin to comprehend the suffering our precious Saviour endured.
God gave His ALL so that we might receive what we could NEVER earn.
And what does He ask of us? That we place our FULL FAITH AND TRUST in His Son and His finished work, believing His precious Word rather than placing our confidence in the doctrines and traditions of men.
I do not write these things because I wish to condemn you. Quite the opposite. I write because I care about your soul and the souls of everyone who might read these words.
I ask only that you examine what you believe and why you believe it. Let no church, denomination, teacher, or tradition take the place of God's Holy Word.
The greatest question is not whether we have been faithful to our religion, but whether our religion has been faithful to GOD.
And remember, the fear of God is not the terror of a child before a cruel father. It is the loving reverence of a child who recognizes the greatness, holiness, and goodness of his Heavenly Father.
When all is said and done, whose Word will you trust - GOD'S or MAN'S?
That is a question every one of us must answer.
83
๐ญ. โ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ท๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ท๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ถ๐บ.โ
And? Truth is not determined by majority vote. The prophets of Israel were frequently rejected by their own people. More importantly, your original claim was that Jews knew Jesus was not the Messiah. Yet His apostles, earliest disciples, and Paul were Jews who proclaimed precisely the opposite. Your appeal to unanimous Jewish rejection is historically false.
๐ฎ. โ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐ต ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ต๐๐บ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ต๐ฒ๐, ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ฑ.โ
You are imposing a particular understanding of the Messiah upon the entire Old Testament. Daniel 7:13โ14 describes one like a Son of Man receiving everlasting dominion and the service of all nations. Psalm 110:1 depicts David's Lord seated at God's right hand. Isaiah 9:6โ7 gives the Davidic ruler extraordinary divine titles. Christianity confesses that Jesus is both truly human and truly divine. His humanity does not exclude His divinity.
๐ฏ. โ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐พ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ ๐ต๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ป ๐บ๐ฒ๐.โ
Christianity does not claim that every messianic prophecy has reached its final fulfillment. Consider what the Old Testament foretold and how Jesus fulfilled it:
- ๐ ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ต ๐ฑ:๐ฎ: The promised ruler would come from Bethlehem. Jesus was born there (Matthew 2:1โ6).
- ๐ฎ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐บ๐๐ฒ๐น ๐ณ:๐ญ๐ฎโ๐ญ๐ฒ: The Messiah would come from David's royal line. Jesus is identified as David's descendant according to the flesh (Romans 1:3).
- ๐๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ต ๐ณ:๐ญ๐ฐ: The child called Immanuel would be born of a woman whom Matthew identifies as a virgin. Jesus' virginal conception fulfills this prophecy in Christian interpretation (Matthew 1:22โ23).
- ๐๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ต ๐ต:๐ฒโ๐ณ: A child would inherit David's throne and establish an everlasting kingdom. Gabriel announces precisely this concerning Jesus (Luke 1:32โ33).
- ๐ญ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ต ๐ต:๐ต: Israel's king would enter Jerusalem humbly, riding on a donkey. Jesus did exactly that (Matthew 21:4โ9).
- ๐๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ต ๐ฑ๐ฏ:๐ฑโ๐ณ: God's suffering servant would bear the sins of others and suffer without retaliation. Jesus' Passion fulfills this prophecy (1 Peter 2:22โ25).
- ๐ฃ๐๐ฎ๐น๐บ ๐ฎ๐ฎ:๐ญ๐ด: The sufferer's garments would be divided by casting lots. This occurred at Jesus' crucifixion (John 19:23โ24).
- ๐ฃ๐๐ฎ๐น๐บ ๐ญ๐ฒ:๐ญ๐ฌ: God's holy one would not be abandoned to death or experience corruption. Peter identifies its fulfillment in Jesus' Resurrection (Acts 2:25โ32).
Christ inaugurated His kingdom through His death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Its consummation awaits His return (1 Corinthians 15:24โ28). You cannot refute Christianity by ignoring its distinction between the first and second comings.
๐ฐ. โ๐๐๐ธ ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐.โ
That establishes what most Jews believe today, not whether Jesus is the Messiah. Modern rabbinic Judaism and Christianity developed along distinct paths from the diverse Jewish religious world of the first century. The convictions of modern Jews cannot erase the testimony of the Jews who first proclaimed Jesus risen.
๐ฑ. โ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ฒ๐๐.โ
Initially, yes. But Jesus explicitly commanded His apostles to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19). He declared that His Gospel would be preached throughout the world (Matthew 24:14). The inclusion of Gentiles was not a betrayal of His mission. It was part of its fulfillment.
๐ฒ. โ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐น๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐๐.โ
Historically indefensible. Paul himself admits that he persecuted the Church before his conversion (Galatians 1:13). How could he have invented a movement he was already persecuting? He personally met Peter and James (Galatians 1:18โ19), and he affirmed that their proclamation of Christ's Resurrection agreed with his own (1 Corinthians 15:11).
๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ ๐ณ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ๐บ:
You appeal to Jewish identity to discredit Jesus while dismissing the Jewish eyewitnesses who proclaimed Him. You appeal to majority opinion instead of demonstrating that their testimony was false. And you attribute Christianity to Paul despite Paul's own admission that the movement existed before his conversion.
๐ฌ๐ผ๐ ๐ต๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ป'๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐๐. ๐ฌ๐ผ๐ ๐ต๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐บ๐ถ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐, ๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐๐ ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ๐, ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐ด๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ผ๐ณ.
And yes, what became Christianity as we know it today was never intended to be a separate religion - even the man Jesus was preaching as a Jew for Jews. Thatโs why we really should call Christianity, Paulianity.
41