Intended Catholic Dictatorship

Independent Individualist ^ | 8/27/10 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

Intended Catholic Dictatorship

The ultimate intention of Catholicism is the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. That has always been the ambition, at least covertly, but now it is being promoted overtly and openly.

The purpose of this article is only to make that intention clear. It is not a criticism of Catholics or Catholicism (unless you happen to think a Catholic dictatorship is not a good thing).

The most important point is to understand that when a Catholic talks about liberty or freedom, it is not individual liberty that is meant, not the freedom to live one's life as a responsible individual with the freedom to believe as one chooses, not the freedom to pursue happiness, not the freedom to produce and keep what one has produced as their property. What Catholicism means by freedom, is freedom to be a Catholic, in obedience to the dictates of Rome.

The Intentions Made Plain

The following is from the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution:

"B. Catholic Culture and Civilization

"Therefore, the ideal of the Counter-Revolution is to restore and promote Catholic culture and civilization. This theme would not be sufficiently enunciated if it did not contain a definition of what we understand by Catholic culture and Catholic civilization. We realize that the terms civilization and culture are used in many different senses. Obviously, it is not our intention here to take a position on a question of terminology. We limit ourselves to using these words as relatively precise labels to indicate certain realities. We are more concerned with providing a sound idea of these realities than with debating terminology.

"A soul in the state of grace possesses all virtues to a greater or lesser degree. Illuminated by faith, it has the elements to form the only true vision of the universe.

"The fundamental element of Catholic culture is the vision of the universe elaborated according to the doctrine of the Church. This culture includes not only the learning, that is, the possession of the information needed for such an elaboration, but also the analysis and coordination of this information according to Catholic doctrine. This culture is not restricted to the theological, philosophical, or scientific field, but encompasses the breadth of human knowledge; it is reflected in the arts and implies the affirmation of values that permeate all aspects of life.

"Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church.

Got that? "Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church." The other name for this is called "totalitarianism," the complete rule of every aspect of life.

This book and WEB sites like that where it is found are spreading like wildfire. These people do not believe the hope of America is the restoration of the liberties the founders sought to guarantee, these people believe the only hope for America is Fatima. Really!

In Their Own Words

The following is from the site, "RealCatholicTV." It is a plain call for a "benevolent dictatorship, a Catholic monarch;" their own words. They even suggest that when the "Lord's Payer," is recited, it is just such a Catholic dictatorship that is being prayed for.

[View video in original here or on Youtube. Will not show in FR.]

Two Comments

First, in this country, freedom of speech means that anyone may express any view no matter how much anyone else disagrees with that view, or is offended by it. I totally defend that meaning of freedom of speech.

This is what Catholics believe, and quite frankly, I do not see how any consistent Catholic could disagree with it, though I suspect some may. I have no objection to their promoting those views, because it is what they believe. Quite frankly I am delighted they are expressing them openly. For one thing, it makes it much easier to understand Catholic dialog, and what they mean by the words they use.

Secondly, I think if their views were actually implemented, it would mean the end true freedom, of course, but I do not believe there is any such danger.

—Reginald Firehammer (06/28/10)

[kosta50]

Torah saved no one. Grace is the only route, and that through Christ. John 6 makes that plain

How so? There is no mention of grace in John 6.

The NIV is full of Gnostic corruption beecause is is from the two Gnostic codices, not the majority texts.

ROFLOL! Majority text is as corrupt as it gets.

[Judith Anne]

Thanks for the ping. Fascinating...I wonder what the response will be?

[Forest Keeper]

[Dr. E.:] We say "our children have been fed." But they're still hungry tomorrow when they eat breakfast, right?

[Kosta:] But that's not what 1 Cor 6:11 says, is it? It says you are (already) sanctified.

Well, the context is that it is part of a list distinguishing between what they were before and are now, i.e. washed, sanctified, and justified. According to Strong's the actual word used here is:

NT:37 a(gia/zw hagiazo (hag-ee-ad'-zo); from NT:40; to make holy, i.e. (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate: KJV - hallow, be holy, sanctify.

[The same word is used in your other examples (1 Cor. 1:2 and 1 Cor. 7:14).] The idea here is that "to be" sanctified means that one has been set apart, consecrated. That matches the spirit of washed and justified. However, the elect continue to be set apart through the life-long process of sanctification. I think this is not a contradiction at all and is analogous to the Bible's various uses of the concept of "saved". The Bible alternately refers to one already having been saved, being in the process of being saved, and being saved in the future. All are correct taken in the correct context.

[Legatus]

UNANIMOUS!!!!

Yeah but Mrs. Slocombe doesn't count as patristic support.

[kosta50]

Well, the context is that it is part of a list distinguishing between what they were before and are now, i.e. washed, sanctified, and justified

Thanks, FK. BTW, good seeing you again. Surprise, I couldn't agree more. :) The message, however, is one of a change that has been accomplished, not one that is being accomplished.

Dr. E was very clear about that in her post (14991) "Sanctification is a life-long process..." as opposed to justification, which "is a one-time event," except that nothing in 1 Cor 6:11 makes that distinction. All three "states" are lumped together in the same aorist as accomplished facts! 

The idea here is that "to be" sanctified means that one has been set apart, consecrated. That matches the spirit of washed and justified. However, the elect continue to be set apart through the life-long process of sanctification

Yes, indeed, the word hagiazo (comes from haigos or holy), means "to make holy," which is—rooted in Greek words for purity and warmth—something that has been set apart from impure (profane), i.e. picked, or elected, or chosen, for purity.  [interestingly, the word heresy is also derived as something that used to mean set apart, or chosen for God, but it's meaning has come top mean something else, and quite opposite]

But where does it say that this choice is being repeated continuously, as Dr. E suggests in 15051? Certainly not in 1 Corinithians 6:11!

She even throws in John Calvin's statement that "God does indeed destroy the kingdom of sin in us. But though it ceases to reign, it continues to dwell in us...His Spirit will ever form us anew to be better and better, that we may walk to the end in newness of life" suggesting that one who has been "set apart" is continuously being regenerated, re-formed anew.

[I won't even go into the idea that God for some strange reason does not destroy sin in his children, but allows it to fester and exert itself in someone who is now supposedly "holy," and continues to remake what sin continues to break! What kind of a perfect work is that?]

And then there is, of course, a specific message to the people of Thessaloniki that it is God's will that they be sanctified by staying away from sexual immorality, which is clearly sanctification accomplished by works!  [oops]

And what about Paul's "alternate path" to sanctification "formula" (1 Corinthians 7:14), whereby all an unbeliever has to do is marry a believer? Isn't that works-related as well? [another oops?] Paul makes it sound like holiness is a citizenship one can acquire by choice! The unbeliever, and even the children, regardless how they are raised, are sanctified automatically through marriage of a believer. Isn't that convenient? :)

However, if I recall correclty, he doesn't deal with what happens to this "heavenly citizenship" in case of a divorce. Does the spouse, previously made "holy," revert to being "unholy," i.e. gets "de-sanctified," and is that a one-time event or a life-long process as well? You know, every day, God de-forms you a little bit...until you are unholy. :)

And what happens if the spouse happens to be a Thessalonian pagan who, having been made "holy" through a marriage to a Corinthian believer, engages in sexual immorality? Which rule applies, pray tell? The spouse is still married to the unbeliever, but the spouse also engaged in a holiness-busting act, so which prevails? Do holiness-busting works annul holiness-building marriage (which is also holiness by works!)? 

I think this is not a contradiction at all and is analogous to the Bible's various uses of the concept of "saved".

I am glad you don't.  It's much easier to just look the other way.  :)

[metmom]

Skepticism is one thing.

You’d think that the genuine skeptic would at least be open to being convinced of the truth and carrying on a conversation to learn.

Anyone who just goes into attack mode on a search and destroy mission isn’t really a skeptic.

[MarkBsnr]

Yeah but Mrs. Slocombe doesn't count as patristic support.

As long as you don't pussy foot around.

[OLD REGGIE]

You have a follower in MarkBsnr but I doubt even he will follow you on this one.

This is me following...

Please define "consensus patrum" and, unlike kosta50, provide reference(s) from a reliable source.

[daniel1212]

The question was not whether Trent added them, but when was the Apocrypha infallibly defined.

Depends if you consider Trent a true Ecumenical Council or not. The Eastern Churches were not represented, so it wasn't Ecumenical and infallible any more than pan-Orthodox Councils held by the Eastern Church.

As the issue is when the Roman Catholic Church infallibly declared the Apocrypha to be inspired, then we must allow her to define Ecumenical and infallibly, and it most evidently believes Trent was both, and which settled the issue of the Apocrypha for Romanism.

Reputable Catholic scholarship could not reputably argue that Trent was a General Council of the entire Church when the Eastern Churches were not present. It is as Ecumenical as Trullo.

And so you may argue, but if anything is certain it is that she defines herself and considers Trent to be Ecumenical, being called by Pope Paul III, continued by Pope Julius III, and, after 18 years and 25 sessions in all, Pope Pius IV concluding and solemnly confirming its decrees. Trent itself abundantly referred to it as the Ecumenical and General Council of Trent, and the Vatican often refers to it as such, as in Pope Paul VI's Sacerdotalis caelibatus. Neither Catholic lists nor the Orthodox recognize Carthage as Ecumenical in its list.

Trent also regulated the liturgy and prohibited any changes to it. Well, the first pope who succeeded the sitting pope at Trent changed it! And so did a number of other popes since then. The last was in 1952, regulating the use of native language in some parts of the Mass and some Easter protocols.

And in 1959, almost on the eve of the Vatican II, John XXIII dropped the Good Friday liturgical prayer for "perfidious Jews" as the first act of his papacy! So what does that say about the "infallible" decision of a Council where the elder bishop is himself considered infallible in matters of official dogma and faith?

And, the decision of the Church in Toledo (Spain) in the 6th century, to ignore the prohibition of the Ecumenical Councils against any additions or deletions of any parts of the Nicene Creed, decided to add the Filioque clause ("form the Father and the Son") which eventually became a major thorn that split the Church.

As such militates against the argument for Roman supremacy, I am sure Roman Catholic apologists can respond you to this, as they seek to do to other charges of infallible councilor contradictions, along with the controversy about Carthage and Limbo, and also that of Pope Honorius, but the issue was never whether Trent or Rome was/is actually infallible, which you do not accept any more than i, but when according to her an ecumenical council infallibly defined the content of Scripture affirming the her deutercanonicals as being part of that.

There were always dissenters, regardless how "infallible" the decision was. The Council of Laodicaea instituted celibacy for Latin clergy. But it took about 1,000 years to implement it more-or-less fully, and then you had examples such as Pope Alexander VI, who in the Renaissance period fathered numerous illegitimate children and even claimed them! Yet he is considered an orthodox pope as regards his teachings and running of the Church!

Not valid comparisons. As Scripturally wrong as i believe it is to require (almost) all priests (bishops/elder is the Biblical pastorate) to have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) the Catholic church has never considered celibacy to be among the infallible dogmas of the church. As regards the second, that is confusing doctrine with personal moral failures, which Roman Catholicism believes does not impugn upon the validity their doctrine or authority (contra 1Cor. 5:9-12).

We are talking reality, not theory. The reality is that in 397 "Apocrypha" were added to the canon as sacred scirputres. In 419 Pope Boniface I put his seal of approval and made it binding on the whole Latin Church. Making the choice of the canon an "infallible" issue never stopped individuals from transgressing it or opposing it.

I also am talking reality, not theory. Carthage being ecumenical is a theory, but the substantial evidence is that this was not considered infallible and thus a binding, settled issue, but after Trent it manifestly was, and it is Trent that Rome holds was ecumenical.

Liberal Jesuits and nuns believe abortion is okay, obviously many a Catholic priest doesn't agree with celibacy (even though they swore to it), and some Catholic nuns believe they ought to be priest(esse)s, and some male priests are willing to "ordain" them even at the price of being excommunicated.

While 'dogma' and 'heresy' refer to teaching about faith and abortion is a matter of morals and a more complicated one, yet Evangelium Vitae is so established among theologians that no modern day Luther would find such esteemed men as Jerome in the past and Cardinal Catejan concurring with him, with the latter being called “one of the most remarkable figures woven into the history of the Reformation on the Roman side . . . a man of erudition and blameless life..Surely no better qualified man could be detailed to adjust the theological difficulties." — Catholic Encyclopedia If Carthage did infallibly defined the canon then those who learned men debated it would have been guilty of formal heresy and the issue hardly have the level of varying opinions among conservative theologians. A 9 vote majority with 16 abstaining does not testify to a settled issue.

And if debate about Ordinatio Sacerdotalis or Humanae Vitae was settled by a conciliar decision as the canon was with Trent, then it could be argued that these are comparable. (So much for the IM solving the problems of interpretations.)

If one wants to be precise, and as its seems Rome intended to be, any addition of a book or subtraction from the Bible would result in two infallible lists, though again the difference is relatively little.

The situation is somewhat confusing. First the canon was passed in silence. Only three bishops voted to have 1 Esdra (which they called 3 Esdra) removed. Second, the classification still retained two "Esdras," except they are now called Ezra and Nehemiah. But it turns out this division is an artificial split of 2 Esdras. This is clearly not the canon of Vulgate which the Council directs must be retained in all of its parts in what appears to be a self-contradiction. So, while there is no doubt that the canon was altered, it retained the same number of Esdras, as in the Vulgate; it's just that their content is somewhat "shifted."

As i understand, the argument is about placing a different person in some else's place versus simply giving him two places. If the former, then Rome has two infallible but differing lists, or only council one is infallible, and if Carthage, this places Rome in error now, even if a minor aspect

At Trent, three voted against it, eight did not vote, and forty two voted to pass over it, but I would have to study the issue more, and the argument from the other side.

You can argue either way. The specificity of which "Apocrypha" and what Esdras contained were never specified by Hippo/Carthage.

More information is needed which i do not have right now.

The point is that Trent did not infallibly "add" the books of "Apocrypha" (which was part of the original question that started this), but merely commanded that they be retained and that no one can question them. But if you really want to be formalist, I think the Seventh Ecumenical Council infallibly canonized the Bible, when the Eastern churches Succumbed and accepted, grudgingly, the Book of Revelation. That was at least 750 years before Trent.

Infallible authority is the key, but if the 7^th than that would place us both in precise error!

Even an "infallible" Council is not considered officially binding unless the Pope signs it.

“Ecumenical refers to "a solemn congregations of the Catholic bishops of the world at the invitation of the Pope [as with Trent] to decide on matters of the Church with him".[2] The ecumenical character of the councils of the first millennium was not determined by the intention of those who issued the invitations. The papal approval of the early councils did not have a formal character, which was characteristic in later councils. The Catholic Church did not officially declare these Councils to be ecumenical. This became theological practice.[3] “

Facts tell us the following: the "Apocrypha" were added in 397 and approved in 419. Some individuals were opposed to it, but the canon stuck as binding to the entire Latin (western) Church, individual clerics' opposition or personal canons notwithstanding.

Again, while i appreciate your reasons, and believe that Carthage largely settle the issue, your disagreement as to the original question is not only with the evidence that this was yet considered a debatable issue by those who knew the law, but with major reputable sources today, including its list of ecumenical councils and its definition of Trent, not Carthage as being such, and infallible. My original response was based upon them, and the question presupposed Rome would be the authority on what it considers ecumenical and infallible. If you can get them to concede Carthage made the infallible decision and not Trent than i can agree.

All in all, this has certainly been educational, though perhaps its probably not worth more time.

[Legatus]

I learn something weird every day. www.romancatholicism.net declares on its front page "The Vatican II religion, headed by Benedict XVI, is a false religion. It is not the original Catholic faith. The "popes" since Paul III (1534) have all been antipopes." Apparently they've recently elected a pope... Boniface X

Loons.

[OLD REGGIE]

I've got to give it to you. You make dogmatic statements which are consistently wrong

What "dogmatic" statement did I make?

Here's one:

(OR)When was the Apocrypha infallibly declared by the Roman Catholic Church to be inspired? And part of the Bible?

(K)August 29, AD 397.

14,187 posted on 10/22/2010 10:49:15 AM PDT by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

kosta50 "dogmatically" declares it as infallible. The RCC does not.
***********************************************************

(OR)Consensus Patrum is a fiction. There is no such thing as an "approved" list of Church Fathers

(K)Consensus patrum refers to Ecumenical or local declarations of the participating bishops.

15,124 posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:55:22 PM by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)

(OR admits this is a stretch of the word "dogmatic". It is; however, a typical arrogant and erroneous claim by kosta50)

Just another example of

[OLD REGGIE]

UNANIMOUS!!!!

Yeah but Mrs. Slocombe doesn't count as patristic support.

If you are allowed to invent your own list of Church Fathers I am also.

[D-fendr]

I’m a bit unclear as to the significance of your position.

Is it that the Church was unclear or wavered or late in including the Apocrypha in the canon?

This obviously is not the case historically. Is your position it wasn’t really in the canon or that it was barely in the canon or...?

I just don’t see what the significance of your position could be.

[kosta50]

I agree with you that this not worth debating much further except that you introduce new issues, such as "when the Roman Catholic Church infallibly declared the Apocrypha to be inspired, then we must allow her to define Ecumenical and infallibly."

It is not that Boniface I declared it specifically "infallible," it is the belief of the Church, and by this I include all Chalcedonian Churches, as a whole, not a as pregorgative of the Latin Church. In fact, Dominus Iesu, leaves no doubt that Eastern Churches are "true Churches," that is catholic, but that because of non-communion with the successor of Peter (Pope) they are deficient (only) in that aspect. Their clergy and sacraments are "valid" and their apostolic authority is genuine.

In order for a Council to be "Ecumenical" it must be attended to by the whole Church, not one Particular Church. Some Latins may argue that since their Church is where Rome is, they get to set the rules, but this is an innovation. Obviously the only way a Council can be Ecumenical is if it resembles the Seven Councils.

Again, the Latin Church refused the Council of Trullo because the west was not represented at that meeting. Pope Benedict has been pursuing very actively steps towards eventual reunion of the Orthodox and Latin Churches. His motto, almost as soon as he was enthroned, was "reunion without morphing or lording over." In other words, no reunion is possible if the Roman Catholic Church insists on the East recognizing pan-Vatican councils as "ecumenical," just as the Orthodox side cannot expect the Vatican to recognize pan-Orthodox Councils as such, individual celery members' differing opinions notwithstanding.

The other issue is the 7th Council. I have not had a chance to read through it, except the sumamry, which states that it was the most Ecumenical of all and that the East accepted the canon of Carthage. Hisotrically, this is very possible, because up until that time, the east refused to acknowledge Revelation as canonical. Finally incorporating it into the cnaon made the universla Church canon posisble. If the cnaon was explicitly acclaimed at the 7th Council, then both of us are wrong.

As regards Pope Honorius (and you are really jumping all over the place here by mentioning him), he himself did not embrace monophysitism. Honorius was a very orthodox pope, and a great eastern Father, Maximumus the Confessor sought refuge in Rome, and thoelogical support fiorm Honorius at the time of yet another Eastern heresy supported by Constantinople.

Honorius' sin was that he allowed a known heresy to fester in Constantinople without calling the Ecumenical Patriarch to answer. for his monophyisitism; he failed to ensure that orthodoxy is taught "everywhere and always" in the Church on his watch. So, while he himself never embraced heresy, he was an accessory to it, and for that he was condemned as a heretic. Unfortunately, all his original letters were burned after the Council, thereby destroying evidence used against him.

As far as his infallibility is concerned, it is argued from reconstructed letters that he never issued an ex cathedra infallible statement embracing monophysitisim, a heresy that was construed to overcome the divide between the Cahlcedonian and non-Chalceodnian (Oriental) Churches, and thereby never theologically erred as a matter of record. But there is no doubt that he may have seen some benefits in monophysisitsm and wanted to see if it could reunited the non-Chalceodnian Churches with Rome and Constantinople. 

Thanks for your respectable arguments.

[kosta50]

Loons

Pretty much. :)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

[I won't even go into the idea that God for some strange reason does not destroy sin in his children, but allows it to fester and exert itself in someone who is now supposedly "holy," and continues to remake what sin continues to break!

Your question reveals a lack of understanding of the meaning of justification.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

It's the error of the Orthodox to believe men can be perfected into a sinless creature in this life. It doesn't happen. Christianity believes that while all human beings are fallen creatures who sin every day of their lives (as Paul reminds us,) some men have been acquitted of those sins by Christ taking on the punishment rightly due them. Therefore Christ is able to present those men to His Father, not as men who don't sin, but as men whose sins have been paid for by Christ on the cross.

That's how Christianity works. That's the plan of salvation God ordained and laid out in the Old Testament and brought to fruition at Calvary as told to us in the New Testament.

Christ, the propitiation for our sins.

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." -- 1 Peter 2:24-25

Do sheep continue to stray? Yep. But we have the assurance from God that Christ is always bring us back into the fold.

If men could become truly sinless, they would not need Christ to present them to God. But that is not what is required.

"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever." -- Jude 1:24-25

---

"And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight" -- Colossians 1:21-22

Christ presents us to God "unblameable" because Christ has accepted the "blame" on our behalf and made restitution to God for our sins. Thus Christ is the only mediator between God and men, the only one who can reconcile our sins with the righteous judgment of God.

And then there is, of course, a specific message to the people of Thessaloniki that it is God's will that they be sanctified by staying away from sexual immorality, which is clearly sanctification accomplished by works!

Do RCs and EO believe in "substitutionary atonement" or is that a doctrine they discarded on the way to the Pelagianism they now practice?

Our sanctification is evidenced by the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the good work God accomplishes in us which we display in this life. Men continue to foolishly take credit for what God performs.

Here is a nice little recap for your pleasure...

R. C. Sproul Comments on the Difference Between Justification and Salvation

'...Justification is a legal or forensic declaration of not guilty and the merits of Christ's perfect life are credited to us. Christ suffers in our place on the cross and bears all the penalty for our sins in the past, in the present, and in the future. This substitutionary atonement satisfies God's law, the just penalty of the law, and removes our guilt.

The basis for our justification is not sanctification. The sole basis for our justification is Christ and his holy life and his atoning death. However, our salvation includes all three aspects I mentioned earlier. That is, salvation is our justification, sanctification and our glorification.

R.C. also mentions the ordo salutis. Roughly speaking, the ordo salutis is the logical and/or temporal order in which our salvation is unfolded. According to Reformed theology, this would be election, predestination, regeneration, conversion/repentance, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

One of the major issues leading to the division between Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation is the distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification and sanctification must always be distinguished from each other. Justification is our legal declaration of "not guilty" based on the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Christ died for our sins to justify us before God in the final judgment. It is outside of us and is an objective fact based on what Christ completed for us by meriting eternal life for us in his perfect obedience on earth and by dying in our place for our sins on the cross. Roman Catholicism committed the error of confusing sanctification, which is an inherent process inside our souls where we are made more and more like Christ as we live a Christian life, with justification. The Roman Catholics can never be sure they are saved because they base their salvation on obedience rather than on justification by faith alone. For Roman Catholics justification is inherent in the soul and the sinner is made actually righteous. This flies in the face of Romans 7 where Paul clearly says that we remain sinners even after we have been declared righteous and begin the process of living a sanctified life." (Charlie J. Ray)

[count-your-change]

I'll trade your double post for my typo...that should’ve been 1 John 5:7.

“But the point is that if all you need is the Torah to makes yourself “restored” in the eyes of God, why the messiah?”

In deed, that is the point, that Law of Moses, though perfect, did not remove sin since no one was able to keep it perfectly.
Had they been able to do so it would have brought life to them. (Lev. 18:5) And to put emphasis to that statement god says, “I am Jehovah”.
Hence the Pharisees searched the Law hoping they might find the means to everlasting life and failed to do so. (John 5:39)
The Law showed the Israelites how to live their lives, to turn a soul or person back to righteousness but like a perfect measuring device it highlighted their failure to keep the law and the need of a redeemer or ransomer.
(Heb. 10:1-4)
Being a redeemer or ransomer was one of the things a messiah would be.

[count-your-change]

Exactly what “Gnostic corruption” does the NIV have?
What are these “Gnostic codices” and what would make you say the majority text is in some way superior?

[count-your-change]

“But who is to judge? :) The “unbiased”? “

Of course! And that would be ME (and you when agree with me)!

[caww]

Very nice explanation DR. E. thnk you.

Though Christian s do accept Christs finished work at Calvary for them....I think part of the problem rests in accepting they are truly forgiven.

An individual who has done some awful dasdardly things seems to understand forgiveness better than those who have an attitutde their sins weren’t THAT bad, which feeds on ones ego. Believing that ALL sin is equally offensive to God and would require the same sacrifice of Christ, regardless of the depth of that sin, is hard for some to accept...therefore their “good works” continue being sufficient for them and that “little sin” was taken care of on Calvary.

I am finding it hard to phrase this but I have seen and heard this attitude by some.