WHY DOES GOD APPEAR SO MEAN?

TruthInConviction ^ | Dec 31 | J. Grant Swank, Jr.

[freedomyes]

“Grant, I wonder if you are a football fan? Just because, if so, I hope you're demanding to the team ownership that the whole team should be put to death immediately. After all, a literal reading of the Bible does tell us that anyone who works on Sunday should be killed, right? And you've apparently linked belief in Christ with blindly following everything in the Bible.”

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>"Did YHvH or His salvation change the Ten Commandments?"

Yes, as a matter of fact He did.

" Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, - Jeremiah 31:31

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. - Luke 22:20

In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." - 1 Corinthians 11:25

Are you suggesting that YHvH's law is no more ?

Read all of Jeremiah chapter 31 for understanding;
The New Covenant is addressed to the house of Israel
and the house of Judah

The Last Pesach:
How does the Roman "church" reject the Passover?
and claim to accept the Passover covenant ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[MHGinTN]

That’s not even surprising coming from you ...

[humblegunner]

How sweet of you to say so!

[don-o]

But why do men hate God? They hate Him not only because their deeds are dark while God is light, but also because they consider Him as a menace, as an imminent and eternal danger, as an adversary in court, as an opponent at law, as a public prosecutor and an eternal persecutor. To them, God is no more the almighty physician who came to save them from illness and death, but rather a cruel judge and a vengeful inquisitor.

You see, the devil managed to make men believe that God does not really love us, that He really only loves Himself, and that He accepts us only if we behave as He wants us to behave; that He hates us if we do not behave as He ordered us to behave, and is offended by our insubordination to such a degree that we must pay for it by eternal tortures, created by Him for that purpose.

The River of Fire

Let him who has ears....

[aruanan]

I’m not saying God didn’t have reasonable cause, but it was still pretty cruel, wasn’t it?

This statement assumes a lot. It assumes that God stands subject to a uniform code of conduct, that is, that there is a higher source of expectation of behavior and means of explaining that behavior than God himself. It assumes that there are extenuating circumstances that could justify God's actions ("reasonable cause"). It assumes that we are capable of explaining God's behavior ("reasonable cause") and intentions ("pretty cruel") within its framework. It assumes we actually know by some objective criteria that God's intentions were contrary to this uniform code of conduct (not that his behavior seemed "pretty cruel" but that it was "pretty cruel." It assumes that we are able to accurately judge gradations of adherence to and deviations from that code of conduct according to some sort of rational faculty exercised upon objective criteria. It assumes, therefore, that such a code of conduct encompasses us as well. It assumes, in the case of destroying the world by flood, that cutting short the lives of sinful people, even if they deserved it ("reasonable cause") was cruel and that the prolongation of life, even if it flew in the face of what could be reasonably expected (ie, what they deserved) was somehow less cruel. It assumes that there is not harmony or consistency between God's attributes and that he can be on the horns of a dilemma, that is, he is either just and a creep or kind and a moral putz.

Some go on to assume (believing, perhaps even unconsciously, in the infallibility of their experience and reason) that since cruelty could not exist with supreme goodness or since kindness could not exist with moral depravity then God must not exist but if he does then he is a devil.

There are a few alternatives to this, but right now I must go eat my asparagus.

[Natural Law]

"Are you suggesting that YHvH's law is no more ?"

The laws of the old Covenants were not abolished, but fulfilled by Christ. (Matthew 5:17)

How does the Roman "church" reject the Passover? and claim to accept the Passover covenant ?"

The Catholic Church does not reject the Passover. It is observed within the Holy Week celebrations, but because it is a celebration of the Exodus it is not as important as the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. Death was visited upon God's own first born son so as Christians we were not passed over.

[Uri’el-2012]

The Catholic Church does not reject the Passover. It is observed within the Holy Week

Passover was condemned in the strongest anti-semitic language
by The Pagan Pontiff Constantine at Nicea, replacing it with
the non-scriptural Easter.

Does Passover ever occur during "holy week" ??

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Natural Law]

"Pagan Pontiff Constantine at Nicea"

I have seen you make this same false claim on numerous threads.

1) Constantine was NEVER a Pope.

2) Constantine was not a pagan. He had accepted Christ more than 12 years before the convening of the Council of Nicene. He was, however, a flawed man, on par with David and Herod. With the exception of Jesus all men are flawed, it is just a matter of degree.

3) Constantine's input to the Council however, was limited to a valedictory address. In his valedictory address, Constantine again informed his hearers how averse he was to dogmatic controversy; he wanted the Church to live in harmony and peace. In a circular letter, he announced the accomplished unity of practice by the whole Church in the date of the celebration of Christian Passover (now called Easter).

[Petronski]

Thank you for that post.

This one insists on posting anti-Catholic propaganda at virtually every turn, and correcting his garbage time after time is a BIG job.

[Petronski]

[Bob Eimiller]

During the Exodus Passover the Israelites were instructed to spread the blood of the sacrificial lamb across the lintels and down the door posts of their dwellings so the angel of death would "Passover" the people. The blood of the lamb spread in that way portends many indicators of the passion of Christ... across the lintel and down the door posts is a symbol of the cross... the blood of an innocent lamb protects the 1st born Israelites before their Exodus into the land of Milk and Honey... Jesus Christ, The Lamb of God shed His innocent blood on the cross for the salvation of those who believe and guarantees Christians a "passover" into Heaven.

The Roman Catholic Church is without doubt based upon Christ who came to fulfill God's covenant... especially the sacrifice of the Mass and the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Those that criticize the Church for crucifying Jesus over and over have no concept of God time. There is no time to God.. He is.. was and will always be.. the alpha and the omega... the beginning and the end...meaning there is no time in Heaven. The sun has nothing to do with Heaven it only creates time on Earth.... If time is irrelevant to God the Mass is taking place at the same time Christ is crucified... All God sees is His Son dying for mankind.. that is why Christ died for all of mankind from the beginning of time to the end of time. When Jesus rose from the dead God sees all of humankind rise from the dead cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

People also criticize Roman Catholicism for praying for the dead... the same time reason holds... to God we all live at the same time and we all die at the same time.... the past, present and future are an instant and eternity in God time.

[Natural Law]

"Does Passover ever occur during "holy week"??

It did this past year (2009). Passover began Wednesday April 9th and lasted until April 16th. Holy Week began on Palm Sunday April 5th and Easter Sunday fell on April 12th.

[Marie2]

Well, I understand your position, but Scripture is clear. We all fell in Adam. So, it seems to me you are rejecting a clear and often repeated Biblical precept.

In fact one might say all of Scripture circles around God dealing with our fall at the beginning of time.

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>Pagan Pontiff Constantine at Nicea

I have seen you make this same false claim on numerous threads.

1) Constantine was NEVER a Pope.

2) Constantine was not a pagan. He had accepted Christ more than 12 years before the convening of the Council of Nicene. He was, however, a flawed man, on par with David and Herod. With the exception of Jesus all men are flawed, it is just a matter of degree.

3) Constantine's input to the Council however, was limited to a valedictory address. In his valedictory address, Constantine again informed his hearers how averse he was to dogmatic controversy; he wanted the Church to live in harmony and peace. In a circular letter, he announced the accomplished unity of practice by the whole Church in the date of the celebration of Christian Passover (now called Easter).

I will go through this one more time; this time very very slowly.

Listen carefully:

I made no claim that the Constantine was ever a "pope"

Constantine refused to be baptized until he was on his death bed.

The title Pontiff or Pontifex Maximus is and was a Pagan title from Babylon.
It describes the Master Bridge builder who conducts souls from this world to Satan.

The question you should be asking yourself is why the roman "church"
took the title Pontiff and proudly proclaims that it's head is the Master Bridge builder to Satan ?

Passover and all the other of YHvH's Holy commanded Feast Days were rejected
and replaced with Pagan feast days; the feast days of the Evil One.

Whatever some people think was the purpose of the Council of Nicea,
the following is what the Roman Pontiff who called and supervised
the council thought was the most important for the world to know.
The following Edict was promulgated to the whole Roman Empire
for their understanding and compliance:

ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER.(The Pagan feast of easter)

From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.
(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same
manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still
be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such
wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an
important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought
not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of
our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to
establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is,
that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated
at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine
Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed
by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it
has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa,
in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only
that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but
also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few
words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the
most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one
and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully
the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes
place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we
can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted
me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together,
seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for
destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace,
and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my
beloved brethren.

from DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA [THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL] A.D. 325

This is the Decree from the Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world.

Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire

He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest

In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire:

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."

Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.

They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day."

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Dr. North]

I'll reprhase:

Do you believe that an innocent little baby should be held liable for the sins of her ancestors?

[Dr. North]

It assumes that God stands subject to a uniform code of conduct, that is, that there is a higher source of expectation of behavior and means of explaining that behavior than God himself.

Actually, if God and the uniform code of conduct are one, God invariably acts in accordance with the uniform code of conduct.

[Natural Law]

"The title Pontiff or Pontifex Maximus is and was a Pagan title from Babylon."

Give it a rest. Just because you post in a bastardized version of Hebrew does not make you an expert in Latin. Pontiff is a Latin word meaning Bishop with its origins of a bridge builder. Pontifex Maximus was reserved for the Jewish High Priest and no one else.

Citing the works of a lunatic professor doesn't help your credibility either:

An assistant professor at University of North Florida was placed on leave with pay Tuesday, one day after he was arrested for allegedly selling cocaine to an undercover police officer.

Paul Halsall was arrested as part of a five-month investigation into drug dealing at Club Metro, a gay nightclub in Riverside.

[Uri’el-2012]

Citing the works of a lunatic professor doesn't help your credibility either:

An assistant professor at University of North Florida was placed on leave with pay Tuesday, one day after he was arrested for allegedly selling cocaine to an undercover police officer.

Paul Halsall was arrested as part of a five-month investigation into drug dealing at Club Metro, a gay nightclub in Riverside.

I have no clue what you are rattling about !

[Uri’el-2012]

I'll reprhase: Do you believe that an innocent little baby should be held liable for the sins of her ancestors?

How do you understand the concept of "Original Sin" ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Dr. North]

...the question was not to you...