Pope Benedict XVI’s End Time Eisegesis

By Cris Putnam
Pope Benedict XVI preached on the Olivet discourse on Sunday 11/18/2012 in St. Peter’s Square. I guess its not too surprising that he twisted the text to mean something completely alien to its context but conforming to the works oriented righteousness of Romanism. Let’s keep in mind, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”(Ga 1:8) as we examine his explanation:

Jesus speaks of a future that is beyond our categories, and because of this Jesus uses images and words taken from the Old Testament, but, importantly, he inserts a new center, namely, himself, the mystery of his person and his death and resurrection. Today’s passage too opens with some cosmic images of an apocalyptic nature: “The sun will be darkened, the moon will no longer give its light, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers in the skies will be shaken” (Mark 13:24-25); but this element is relativized by what follows: “Then the Son of Man will come upon the clouds in the sky with great power and glory” (13:26). The “Son of Man” is Jesus himself, who links the present with the future; the ancient words of the prophets have finally found a center in the person of the Messiah of Nazareth: he is the central event that, in the midst of the troubles of the world, remains the firm and stable point.

Another passage from today’s Gospel confirms. Jesus says: “The sky and the earth will pass away but my words will not pass away” (13:31). In fact, we know that in the Bible the word of God is at the origin of creation: all creatures, starting with the cosmic elements – sun, moon, sky – obey God’s Word, they exist insofar as they are “called” by it. This creative power of the divine Word (“Parola”) is concentrated in Jesus Christ, the Word (“Verbo”) made flesh, and also passes through his human words, which are the true “sky” that orients the thought and path of man on earth. For this reason Jesus does not describe the end of the world and when he uses apocalyptic images he does not conduct himself like a “visionary.” On the contrary, he wants to take away the curiosity of his disciples in every age about dates and predictions and wishes instead to give them a key to a deep, essential reading, and above all to indicate the right path to take, today and tomorrow, to enter into eternal life. Everything passes – the Lord tells us – but God’s Word does not change, and before this Word each of us is responsible for his conduct. It is on this basis that we will be judged.

Pope Benedict XVI “On the Coming of the Son of Man” http://www.zenit.org/article-35982?l=english

It is because this sort of nonsense that the term eisegesis was coined. It means reading meaning into a text rather than reading a meaning from a text.  Its really so bad its hard to know where to start but I bolded two major errors. First, when Jesus said the he would come on the clouds with great glory he was referencing the son of Man passage in Daniel’s vision (Dan 7:13). He indeed identified himself as divine. Yet, Pope Benedict seems to deny that Jesus is speaking of cosmic judgement at His return. Yet that is exactly what he is speaking of, in fact, he was answering a question about the signs of his coming and (in direct contradcition to the infallible pope) the end of the world.

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?(Mt 24:3, KJV)

Doesn’t it seem odd that Jesus is addressing the very thing the pope says he is not? And finally, the pontiff just abandons the text entirely and spins it toward Romanist heresy with this canard, ” before this Word each of us is responsible for his conduct. It is on this basis that we will be judged” Anyone who is judged on his conduct will be cast into eternal hell, even our most righteous acts are like filthy rags (Isa 64:6). It is only those who have accepted that authentic Gospel who will have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. A few passages come to mind:

“And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,” (Ro 4:5)

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.(2 Co 5:21)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God”,(Eph 2:8)

In justification God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believer, which cancels God’s judgment on the believer. It’s not based on conduct rather faith in Christ. “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Ro 3:28)

Be warned, the pope is preaching a false Gospel that leads to damnation.

 

 

 

About Cris Putnam
Logos Apologia is the ministry of Cris D. Putnam. The mission of Logos Apologia is to show that logic, science, history and faith are complementary, not contradictory and to bring that life-changing truth to everybody who wants to know.

Comments

  1. Hasn’t it been thus since the Council of Nicea in the 4th Century? Once Rome co-opted the Christian movement, everything afterward becomes suspect. I am not saying that Roman Catholicism doesn’t accomplish great works of charity, education, healthcare, etc… There are wonderful people throughout history who have devoted their lives to the example Christ set. However, the upper echelons of the Church Heirarchy as a whole have had a chequered past to say the least. Every Catholic knows this but accepts the church with her human fraillties because anything that has been controlled by humans for 2000 years is bound to be imperfect…regardless of assertions of infalliblity. Peter was the very first pope…he denied Christ three times…I’d call that fallible.
    We are called to separate the wheat from the chaff…not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Uselfulbreather your post is full of historical errors. Nicea had nothing to with it. First, Peter was never Bishop of Rome and this can proven from the New Testament alone as well as early church documents that list Linus as the first bishop of Rome. Next, the papacy as it exists today did not come into being until AD 606. There was no universal bishop over the Christian church until then, the bishop of Rome was merely a regional leader. The idea of a papacy tracing back to Peter is pure mythology promoted by the RCC as a claim to authority by apostolic succession. It is false. Even historians at Notre Dame University teach this. Here is citation from my book Petrus Romanus p. 178:

      According to the director of the Medieval Institute and Professor of
      history at the University of Notre Dame, Thomas F. X. Noble, the
      Roman Catholic dates of Peter as bishop of Rome from 42 to 67 are
      wrong. Noble is certainly a preeminent authority on the papacy and
      his lecture notes state unequivocally, “Peter did not found the Roman
      community, and there is no good evidence that that community had
      a bishop—an ‘overseer’—in the 1st century.”

      We are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we’re saying “the emperor has no clothes.”

      • Explain your well-researched thesis on the Emporer to the children in St. Jude’s Hospital in Memphis. I am not debating the veracity of the New Testament with you, or the tradtional beliefs held regarding the early church, I am saying that despite your claims of Romanism there is a very long-legacy of self-sacrifice and good works that should not be sullied by the bad apples at the top. Can we agree on that?

        • Cris Putnam says:

          Usefulbreather, I don’t doubt that many good works are done by Roman Catholics but an atheist can do good works… right? The issue at hand here is biblical theology and the fact that true biblical Christianity is subverted by Rome. In this case, the pope has twisted a biblical passage far from its context and introduced a pernicious theological construct into it. Rome’s gospel of works does not lead to salvation. “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”(Ro 11:6)

          Bill Gates gives millions and builds hospitals like St Jude’s – he is also an atheist – based on your reasoning he is a true Christian. I think this shows that your logic is severely flawed.

          • covenantman says:

            Chris, to begin with I am not a catholic, but are you saying if a christian believes we are to keep God’s commandments he is trying to earn his salvation through works? do you see this as being a false gospel?

          • williamgoodnight says:

            in the book of revelation it says the books were opened and all men were judged by their works. we know from paul man is saved through faith in christ. but works are as important it seems to prove the faith. one could argue every good though towards our fellow man,suffering for Christ etc are good works, man was never justified by faith alone as we know from james the apostle

          • Cris Putnam says:

            @williamgoodnight Most scholars believe that The people judged by their works at the great white throne are unbelievers and they all go to hell. I wouldn’t recommend that route.

            “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.(Re 20:12)

            From other Scriptures it seems that all the righteous dead have been raised, including Old Testament saints, the dead of the Great Tribulation, and the church saints, the body of Christ (see comments on v. 5). Thus it may be assumed that verses 11-15 refer to the judgment of the wicked dead, who according to verse 5 would not be resurrected until after the thousand years and will have no part in what is called “the first resurrection.”

            John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), Re 20:12.

          • williamgoodnight says:

            (not defending the pope what he said was a deliberate act of mockery of christ)the catholic church has never taught that works alone get one to heaven.the word ALONE. such as man is justified by faith ALONE is not biblical. the bible says man is justified by faith, Luther added the Word ALONE. why do so many bible believing Christians teach using references not in the Bible. Martin Luther deliberately put the word alone in the bible and made hundreds of deliberate errors and took out tons of books in the old and new testament. so much so its embarrassing. His hatred of Jews is also embarrassing for the like of evangelicals who love Israel but still quote from him. James says man is justified by Faith and works. Paul says man is justified by faith(not faith alone) which is why Luther called James a straw epistle(and removed it from his bible). Luther is a destroyer and comes under St Pauls curse of Anathema. yet so called bible believing scholars still quote him(unbiblically).James view is shared by all catholic world wide denominations including Coptic Christians Greek orthodox(and many protestant churches).Calling oneself a bible believing Christian then quoting Luther is a contradiction in terms. Luther was no Christian but self grandisising cult leader. there is debate as to does James contradict Paul(i do not believe so will leave that to others like Mr Putnam to explain).
            I agree with the church Faith in jesus christ must come first. thats not Debatable but rather why Luther put into the bible words which have been subsequently taken out (by his followers because it is so embarrassing) and why do so called bible believing Christians not acknowledge this fact but still teach an um-biblical doctrine from a man who comes under the biblical curse of Pauls anathema surely then so do the teachers of this heresy. there are hundreds of websites who teach the bible and with a simple google search one can see they are taking a Lutherian position. their hatred of the Roman church has made them the worst bible scholars in history.

          • Cris Putnam says:

            the catholic church has never taught that works alone get one to heaven.

            No one said they taught “works alone” but it is clearly by good works and baptism and mass and prayers to saints and prayers to mary and rosary beads and confession and penance and pilgrimages etc. etc. A never ending treadmill of religious slavery. Please explain the purpose of purgatory if one is not justified by works in Catholic theology. They have a false Gospel which does not justify.

            The doctrine of sola fide or “by faith alone” asserts that God’s pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received exclusively through faith, conceived as excluding all “works”, thus alone. It is entirely biblical as an inference from “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,” (Eph 2:8) Attacking Martin Luther is just a red herring.

            Since you disagree with Sola Fide what is it that you think to add to faith?

            Romans 3:28: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
            Romans 4:5: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
            Romans 5:1: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
            Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
            Romans 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
            Romans 11:6: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
            Romans 14:23: “…for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

        • john B says:

          I worked for a charitable masonic organisation for 14 years they finally got rid of me because I started to become more vocal about Jesus.
          i agree that i did many good works whilst employed there, and done it all unto Him as a sacrifice of praise. Rom12:1.
          There is a difference however in trying to please God to escape the Judgment to come That is called (self righteousness) I want to please God because I love Him not to escape his judgment.

          Blessings

          john B

          • williamgoodnight says:

            as a catholic i agree to an extent with Chris, this pope is an anti-christ and not even remotely catholic. the catholic church teaches man is saved through faith and also the works which follow(faith always comes first). i have read in a catholic newspaper i found in church(one of the last times i have went to the new invalid mass) the pope was quoted as saying there is no difference between a catholic a Christian or a Muslim. I am not a scholar like Mr Putman so don’t challenge me on that but even I was amazed and realised he was an anti-christ because he knows the Moslem’s blaspheme the holy spirit and deny Christ was even crucified. There he was in black and white promoting this Blasphemy. he knows there is a huge difference between Catholics and protestants. he is an apostate from hell a false bishop who is has been seen giving masonic hand shakes to the likes of tony blair. this pope personally covered up the paedophile priests along with all the V2 popes who are secret Freemasons as has been well documented. He does not preach christ but is vague and uses obscure language which can mean anything which is condemned under scripture , under cannon law he would be excommunicated for knowingly leading the sheep astray through his heresy and apostacy(thus condemning them to hell with him).therefore he can not be head of what he is not part of the catholic church and neither can any of the false-anti-christ bishops or cardinals who are part of the vile vatican2 sect.who reward blasphemers and prosecute the true Catholics who love jesus.

          • williamgoodnight says:

            the masons do good works to cover for their secret deeds. Its no secret Arnold Schwarzenegger who;s father was a nazi and wears his fathers nazi death head belt an man who was friends with top nazi’s who were in the highest positions in the UN. Arnold is involved in secret societies(my opinion a closet fascist) admired hitler gives millions to Jewish charities. I would just call it trying to cover their crimes with blood money. the charitable events are also a cover to meet other masons and do business and such. The world is full of these people who overtly or in-overtly work for satan himself. secret oaths to protect brother masons are also acts of sedition in every country in the world. especially when it involves government officials.The masons is low level evil to the core.It is how Satan Runs the world.

          • hopeful_watcher says:

            I have been studying masonry and the secret mysteries for some time now. They are all cut from the same cloth and engaged in worship of sexual union between a man and a woman. They do this symbolically and sometimes they do it literally. These practices can be traced back to Hinduism with what is called Yoni worship or worshipping the genitals of Lord Shiva who is hermaphoditic. Bottom line is this ritual worship has even been incorporated into the highest form within the Catholic Eucharist and there “adoration” of Mary.

            I could go on and on about some of these rituals even border on child sacrifice and canabilism but that would get pretty graphic. Suffice it to say, this sex worship goes so far as to worship the excrements of sex and when combined together are the building blocks to life. Need I say more.

      • Kingdom Come says:

        Next, the papacy as it exists today did not come into being until AD 606? Where did you read that on line at the protestant heretic web sight. You should read the letters in defense of Athanasius as you don’t know what your talking about. Unilateral authority wasn’t established but all recourse to problems went through the Bishop of Rome. Cyprian on Church Unity and Irenaeus against heresy chapter 3:3 prove you wrong. And that was before 300 AD.

        Your assumption of Peter in Rome is just that also. And yes you could on with your narrow minded unChristian heretical oh so Luther thinking. But its a stone not bread, just like the Arians you are a heretic. The only thing you value is your oh so prideful sola scripture reading of which you are the Pope, How foolish is that? Then astonishing as that is you’ll listen to another heretic do the same in some fringe so called congregation where Snakes are worshipped to test the holy spirit.

        500 years and 5000 denomination with a Burger King mentality of have it your way. Bottom line is the refusal to accept the teachings of Athanasius through Maximus the Confessor thus the Incarnation thus the nature of Jesus Christ, Baptism, particular and final judgement which have always been taught east and west. Then you are a heretic no different than Arius.

        Our prayers are with you and your cult. There is no salvation outside the Church. Thats where you are in a dingy tagging along side the Ark.

    • williamgoodnight says:

      the Council of Nicea in the 4th Century which gave us the bible its its present form excluding the books taken out by protestants also gave us the profession of faith used by all catholic denominations in the world now, It also gave us the doctrine of the Trinity which was disputed at the time (bit like the Jehovah witness use the Arian argument) the council was in Turkey not Rome and was a miracle because many of the bishops were part of the Arian heresy. which Constantine was against ,Afterwards Constantine went back on this and returned to the Arian camp. St Athanasia was the champion of the doctrine of the trinity and godhood of jesus.he was all alone at one point. people have the history, wrong. Constantine only was baptised a catholic(christian) before his death as an old man. he had no influence on the catholic church in Rome as he lived mostly in Constantinople his capital and was an opponent of the the true christian church for long periods of his life. there were also at this time many arguments over which See or Bishopric was the chief over the rest which eventually led to the east west division or schism between Catholics and the orthodox church. the history is quite long but well worth a good read . i am not an expert like Mr Putnam so please excuse any mistakes or quotes.

    • ambience says:

      It is by the hand of our Lord Jesus and His angels that the wheat from the chaff are separated, in the great harvest of souls. We are only called upon to be discerning, and this report is an excellent warning for that purpose.We are not to excuse false teaching because it blocks the way to salvation that is given us as we accept the sacrifice He made for us, and begin to live under God-given laws of conduct and a living faith.

  2. Mel says:

    The pope said “The sky and the earth will pass away but my words will not pass away” (13:31). In fact, we know that in the Bible the word of God is at the origin of creation: all creatures, starting with the cosmic elements – sun, moon, sky – obey God’s Word, they exist insofar as they are “called” by it.

    He should also be aware of the Words of The Apostle Peter whom he believes to be Pope No1

    “seeing that all these things shall be dissolved…..Looking for and hastening unto the coming of the Day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat” 2Pet3:11,12

    I find it fascinating that the many catholics i know, actually know nothing about the teachings of Apostle Peter!

    Blessings

    john B

  3. KC says:

    I went through 16 years of RC education – the Pope’s interpretation of that passage is pretty much par for the course. On another note – what on earth is with that sculpture in the photo of the pope? Says it’s “resurrection” – does Jesus have a bag on his head ?!?!

  4. Mrs M says:

    I find it telling the timing of this, the end of the age: Dec 21 is approaching and we have the pope’s two cents on what’s going to lead us to salvation when Jesus comes. And it’s not what the pope says: he is in error. The Christmas season really is awaiting the sun god. I guess when you have the solar sun dial with an obelisk in the center denoting the end of the age in your backyard your theology does get confusing. Come out of her and be separate.

    • williamgoodnight says:

      christmas was a feast day dedicated to the birth of jesus. it was originally the day of a pagan god zeus or whatever, the church could not eradicate it so replaced it with a celebration of the birth of jesus christ. we have in our present day gone back to the pagan practices of drinking and be merry in our modern age. I think its actually worse as santa-satan was invented by coco cola to sell products and make christmass into a commercial hell we all know today.churchmen in the 50s were seen burning santa effigy’s at Christmas but it has seeped so far into the modern conscience that we celebrate who we now call saint nik(old nick has always been a name for the devil).instead of jesus christ. agree with the come out of her and separate sentiment, but its like asking an isreali to give up jerusalem,

    • ambience says:

      Mrs. M, Please go to this site and read the Maya Calendar Truth Revealed (prophecy section).www.standeyo.com posted this Thanksgiving Day. You will be given understanding to put aside your anxiety about Dec 21 hype that has nothing to do with our Lord and His plan and timing for us, who
      will enter His kingdom in Heaven. Put on the armor of God and be strengthened. I am the author of the article
      based on my Guidebook to the First Maya civilization.

      • hopeful_watcher says:

        You are right that Dec. 21 has nothing to do with our Lord and His plan, but I don’t believe its hype. It’s Satan’s prophecy. It is a date that will funnel the world into Catholicism. I think there will be three days and three nights of darkness, which is a Catholic prophecy. As planned, by the demonic and fallen, the sun will come out on Christmas day, so they can put forth their false Christ. Then the two witnesses played by Saint Peter and Saint Paul will pick the last pope.

  5. DT says:

    Wow, that background is so vile, it reminds me of scenes from the horror film Silent Hill. If you have the stomach, just search the film in Google Images and you will see the same devilish concept.

  6. Ron says:

    actually the word is age, not world. Jesus is talking about then end of the age. so you are misinterpreting the word as well. not that I’m trying to defend the pope.

    • Me says:

      KJV says “world”. You are incorrect and defending the Pope.

      • Ron says:

        KJV is wrong as it is in so many other places. the word is aion which is age. and since you couldn’t read my first post I will say again that I am not defending the Pope.

    • williamgoodnight says:

      you may be right but his ambiguous language is the problem, when he says jesus was not PLAYING the prophet, it sounds like some kind of mockery. i am a catholic and nothing would surprise me about this man.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      No actually the word is neither age nor world. It’s a Greek word αἰών and it is used in both senses but even if we take it to mean age – the context is the end of the age — this would mean the end of the world as we know it, so no matter which way you take it the pope’s view is misleading.

      2. αἰών as World.

      The sense of “time or course of the world” can easily pass over into that of the “world” itself, so that αἰών approximates closely to κόσμος. In Mk. 4:19 and the par. Mt. 13:22 the phrase αἱ μέριμναι τοῦ αἰῶνος means “the cares of the world” (cf. ὁ γαμήσας μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, 1 C. 7:33). Paul uses as equivalent expressions σοφία τοῦ κόσμου, σοφία τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου and σοφία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου(1 C. 1:20; 2:6; 3:19). To the description of the end of the world as συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος there corresponds the description of its beginning as καταβολὴ κόσμου (→ κόσμος).

      , vol. 1, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-), 203.

      • john B says:

        I agree; the end of the age is the end of the world. That which the Lord said is to occur concerning His return.. The consummation of all things as spoken by the Apostle peter in 2Pet3:10-13

        blessings

        john B

      • Ron says:

        No it is not the end of the world. The KJV is wrong on this. Aion has to do with time. Indefinite but not without end. It can mean anything from a week to a thousand years but it can never mean world. The KJV translators chose world because their favourite use of aion is forever and since the verse refers to the end it cannot mean forever so they chose world. It is a ridiculous translation and totally misleading. It only means world in the ‘world’ of inconsistent translation done by the KJV translators.

        There are many other far better translations that consistently translate aion as age.

        Strongs 165 is aion, 166 aionos, 2889 kosmos (world)

        Mark 10:30 But he shall receive (5632) an hundredfold now in this time , houses , and brethren , and sisters , and mothers , and children , and lands , with persecutions ; and in the world to come (5740) eternal life .

        Interesting how the translators found it fitting to use world for aion (not kosmos) but then 3 words later aionos becomes eternal.

        The use of aion in the time when these were written was age not world or eternal. The words meanings have been changed by translators with alterior motives.

        And again I am not supporting the Pope just proper translation.

        • Cris Putnam says:

          Ron wrote, “but it can never mean world.” Did you even read my last reply? I posted a scholarly lexicon that proves you wrong.

          2. αἰών as World.

          The sense of “time or course of the world” can easily pass over into that of the “world” itself, so that αἰών approximates closely to κόσμος. In Mk. 4:19 and the par. Mt. 13:22 the phrase αἱ μέριμναι τοῦ αἰῶνος means “the cares of the world” (cf. ὁ γαμήσας μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, 1 C. 7:33). Paul uses as equivalent expressions σοφία τοῦ κόσμου, σοφία τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου and σοφία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου(1 C. 1:20; 2:6; 3:19). To the description of the end of the world as συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος there corresponds the description of its beginning as καταβολὴ κόσμου (→ κόσμος).

          , vol. 1, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-), 203-04.

          So it certainly can be used to mean world.

  7. lisag says:

    Jesus is God, the Son of the Father, He is not a prophet and has no need to be one. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and He was born of the Virgin Mary. He is divine and a man. Jesus speaks the Truth always. He will bring about the Age of Peace on earth after the end of this age. All evil will be removed and the devil will be chained up until the final confrontation.

    • Ron says:

      How can Jesus be God and the Son of God at the same time? How can Jesus be the image of God and God at the same time? How can Jesus HAVE a God and BE God at the same time? How can Jesus claim that His Father is greater than He is and be God at the same time? How can Jesus be God and yet receive His power and authority from God? If Paul says that the Father of Jesus is also His God how can he be God at the same time?

      Just asking?

      • Cris Putnam says:

        Ron – your questions are largely focused on the doctrine of the trinity. We believe in one God in three persons. Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Spirit is God, Jesus is not the Father, Jesus is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father, and God is one. Perhaps start here.

      • lisag says:

        God is one God in 3 persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each with their own identity, but acting in the will of the Father and in union with each other. Jesus said to know Him is to know the Father. He does the will of the Father and the Holy Spirit is the reflection of the love between the Father and Son. All have existed forever and before anything. As the Father’s representative on earth, Jesus is obedient to the will of the Father. He has all authority on heaven and earth from the Father and in union with the Father. Remember Jesus who grew up among the Jewish people needed to convince them and us in some ways that he is indeed more that what they know. He is divine and a man who walks among men. God had not spoken to man face to face. He so loves mankind that he sacrificed His Son, Himself, for us. He did not even ask Abraham to go through with his son’s sacrifice, but willing gave up his own Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ. That is why the church will go through a death of some sort and Christians will have to give up everything and only depend on Him. Jesus, as the head of the church, will lead the body of the Church through a crucifixion before the new age of peace.

      • john B says:

        For me the Trinitarian concept can only be understood in the fact that Jesus was the Word made flesh.. That word which was spoken by “the breath of God’s mouth” to make the heavens and all their hosts Psalms33:6.. also became flesh Jn1:1

        It is interesting that in the beginning was God and the Spirit moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said! Gen1:23 God spoke.
        At the incarnation we also see Mary overshadowed by the Spirit of the Most High Lk1:35.

        Blessings

        john b

      • Brad says:

        Ron,

        I understand all of your questions quite clearly, and I think they are very astute! I have had similar discussions with many of my fellow Christians regarding the Trinitarian issue.

        I recognize the Trinity, too, however, I believe there is a heirarchy in place evident throughout scripture. Most Christians have been taught mainstream theology and doctrine and have tried to apply these teachings to the scriptures that they encounter, rather than reading these scriptures for themselves without such predetermined teachings and allow the words with the assistance of the Holy Spirit to teach us who Christ is. The Church was confused about who Christ is/was back in his day, and similarly there remains much confusion about who in fact he is today.

        Jesus was not God’s twin brother, he was and is his blessed Son. Much is revealed about Jesus’s identity in this very special and unique relationship. If you mention that a heirarchy exists within the Trinity (which by the way there is no mention of the word Trinity anywhere within the Bible) then you are doing some sort of dis-service to whom Jesus Christ and/or the Holy Spirit are. However, by such similar reasoning, many fail to understand or even recognize the appropriate reverence for our heavenly Father’s identity and relationship to everything else! Jesus never referred to himself as God anywhere in scripture, he only referred to himself as the Son of God, and in some cases as the Son of Man repeatedly. He even corrected the Pharisees when they accused him quite pointedly of calling himself God (John 10:30-36), to which he replied why do they accuse me of heresy when I said “i am God’s Son?” Surely, Jesus would have never shied away from such a direct question regarding his own identity. He was exactly whom he said he was — the Son of God — and was clarifying his identity to those listening in the crowd! That doesn’t diminish Jesus or his deity at all, it just establishes the relationship of each or heirarchy within the Holy Trinity.

        Lastly, Jesus was glorified by his Father and placed upon the throne with the crown of righteousness, and his name was placed above all others in Heaven, on the Earth, and below the Earth upon his ressurection and his ascension to Heaven. Rev 3:21 “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” All the power and authority that Jesus has was given to him(conferred to him) freely and willfully by his Father. Jesus is my Lord and my Savior and the Christ to whom I pray to, and he accomplished his divine and Earthly mission free from sin wherein the first Adam failed.

        Blessings to all.

        • Cris Putnam says:

          Brad wrote:

          Jesus never referred to himself as God anywhere in scripture,

          Actually, He did just that. Fortunately for us, the Pharisees reaction to Jesus clarifies the question.

          “The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.” (Jn 8:52-59)

          When Jesus said, “I am,” He was not being grammatically incorrect. “I am” is a name of Yahweh. He was claiming the personal name God gave Himself when He spoke to Moses from the burning bush. The Pharisees understood this but did not believe it and they immediately tried to execute Jesus because of the proscription found in Leviticus 24:16. Death by stoning is the punishment for breaking the fourth commandment, “Do not misuse the name of the Lord your God.” Jesus directly claimed to be God and the Pharisees knew it.

          You might also consider the implications of “Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (Jn 14:9)

          • Brad says:

            Thank you Cris for your response.

            I believe your reference to Jesus statement “I am” in his verbal exchange with the Pharisees has been taken out of context in this passage, and improperly connected to the Old Testament words spoken by God “I AM that I AM” (in Exodus 3:14). Jesus used the present tense of a very commonly used phrase (subject/verb) “I am”, when referencing his heavenly/earthly time existence in comparison to that of Abraham’s brief earthly life. (Jesus was informing the Pharisees that his existence did not start when his earthly birth occurred which is something that the Pharisees could not conceptually grasp. He was not suggesting that he was God as they believed that he may have been implying. Jesus’ reference to Abraham’s life was under the conditions of time, and therefore had a temporal beginning. Abraham came into being, or was born whereas Jesus’ existence not only preceded that of Abraham’s in the heavenly realm, but also succeeded that of Abraham’s in the earthly realm. Jesus existence was from and to eternity. Hence the formula for this timeless existence, was the reason for his use of the description “I am”. He would be unable to describe his continuous existence as simply “I was” or that “I will be”, but rather that he is or still is, or more correctly “I am” — he always was and always will be.

            I believe you’re correct in assuming that the Pharisees may have believed Jesus was implying to be God by several of his startling statements, and therefore insisted that Jesus clarify whether he was asserting to be God or not (John 10:30-36). I think we can agree that Jesus would not lie about his identity (as he was in the process of unveiling his identity to them), nor would he ever shy away from such a direct question as to who he in fact was? Rather Jesus did not hesitate to correct them by questioning how it could be heresy to identify himself as the Son of God when that was in fact who he was. We know how this matter played out, because the Pharisees decided not to stone him to death based upon Jesus’ answer to their question (and keep in mind they had already picked up the stones to throw at him). They must have dropped their stones because they believed Jesus had not committed heresy by claiming to be God (to their satisfaction), otherwise they would have chosen to stone him to death right there on the spot.

            Again, I stand behind my claim nowhere in scripture can I find where Jesus claimed to be God. Rather, Jesus claimed repeatedly to be the Son of God and was deferential to God (his Father) in every instance. It also says in 1John that no one has ever seen God, because God is Spirit.

            Warm regards,
            Brad

          • Cris Putnam says:

            Brad, while your view would be coherent if he said “I was” (aorist, infinitive) he did not and it is grammatically incorrect to say “I Am” (present active indicative). Thus, from the Greek grammar it is clearly not a common usage taken out of context, he is making a point out of “I am”. Most evangelical Bible scholars concur as well. For example, the ESV study bible:

            Jesus does not simply say, “Before Abraham was, I was,” which would simply mean that he is more than 2,000 years old. Rather, he uses the present tense “I am” in speaking of existence more than 2,000 years earlier, thus claiming a kind of transcendence over time that could only be true of God. The words “I am” in Greek use the same expression (Egō eimi) found in the Septuagint in the first half of God’s self-identification in Ex. 3:14, “I AM WHO I AM.”

            Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2041.

            Also you never mentioned how your view accounts for “if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.”

            Perhaps you also might think about Paul’s statement: “To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”(Ro 9:5)

          • john B says:

            Hi Brad ; The question is; Was Jesus “the word” or was He substantially as we know Him Today.. the second person of the Godhead?

            blessings

            john B

  8. Fr. Matt Barnum says:

    If thou say: I have not strength enough: he that seeth into the heart, he understandeth, and nothing deceiveth the keeper of thy soul, end he shall render to a man according to his works. Proverbs 24:12

    For he will render to a man his work, and according to the ways of every one he will reward them. Job 34:11

    …for thou wilt render to every man according to his works. Psalm 62:12

    I am the Lord who search the heart and prove the reins: who give to every one according to his way, and according to the fruit of his devices. Jeremiah 17:10

    For we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil. 2 Cor 5:10

    Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond, or free. Ephesians 6:8

    For he that doth wrong, shall receive for that which he hath done wrongfully: and there is no respect of persons with God. Colossians 3:25

    What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. James 2:14-18

    For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. Matthew 16:27

    • john B says:

      Matt; The emphasis of works in Mat16:27 is not that which is done to merit salvation..There are two works expressed in that which Jesus speaks. The works of faith and the works of unbelief, the works of grace or the works of the flesh, one is righteous works the other works of fifth Rev22:12..
      Salvation belongs to the house hold of Faith.. Good works is a product of ones faith. James is not saying that works needs to be added to faith No! He says “I will show you my faith by my works… as a result Faith was perfected” James2:18,22
      Apostle Paul said “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every Good Work” Col1:10
      Our work is that which was foreordained that we should walk in them Eph2:10
      Every good comes from the Father.. For God alone is Good said Jesus.. It is His grace manifest in our works!

      Blessings

      john B

      • Fr. Matt Barnum says:

        Hi John…

        You are correct that the works are a result (and a mandate) of true faith and active cooperation with the unearned grace of God. Catholics who are faithful to the teaching of the Church don’t believe they can earn their way into heaven.

        Pax,

        Fr. Matt

        • john B says:

          Hi Matt;Therefore then; The remnant of God is none denominational.. For indeed God is neither Catholic or Protestant!

          He is Holy, as such is His remnant.. Praise the Lord!

          Blessings

          john B

          • Fr. Matt Barnum says:

            Hi John…

            God is Truth. In His abundant Love and Mercy He revealed Himself to us in His Son Jesus Christ. He insured that the Truth would be transmitted faithfully and without error–see Mt. 16:16-19, 1 Tim 3:15. Rejection of the of the profession of St. Peter and the promise and authority given him for the benefit of the whole Church leads to the thousands of different protestant ecclesial communities that all contradict each other on one point or another–thus, each person becomes his own highest authority of interpretation–you say your right, John Doe says he’s right, Jill Doe say’s she’s right. However, to none of these did Christ say “Tu Est Petrus”!

            Pax,

            Fr. Matt

          • john B says:

            Hi Matt; for me it is not so much who is right or who is wrong but rather the conviction of knowing something to be true.. There is a fear of the Lord that causes prudence concerning doctrines taught to another.. Papal infallible authority with it theological structure was not that which was bestowed upon the Apostle Peter.
            Papal infallibility does not allow the possibility that Jesus is the Good shepherd of the Flock, and permits not that “His voice” be heard to all who have the ears to hear Jn10:1-5

            This is where I disagree with the Pope taking unto himself the Title of Vicar of Christ and head of the church, for No Apostle ever taught this! In can be seen in the NT that it was James as much as Peter and Paul that had the oversight of the Jerusalem council Acts15:4-22

            A false authority always manifests itself by the practice of persecution against all who challenge it’s authority.. The Papal seat is renown for it, as was the Pharisees who had the Lord Crucified.
            Historical facts cannot be ignored.. Protestantism is just as Guilty of presumptuous authority.

            Christ is the true Shepherd and Head of His church Eph5:23 and It is His voice that we heed not men’s.
            Good and well if the pope does not contradict the Apostles teachings, But He does as Cris rightly showed by His post, and that is only in one of the pope’s sermon..
            The Authoritative infallibility doctrine and all that is contained by that decree which is in contradiction to scripture, pretty well annuls the pope of any credibility as a successor of Apostle Peter.

            Blessings
            john B

          • hopeful_watcher says:

            Amen to Christ being non-denominational. We are to be called to be disciples of Christ. He is the head, not some religious institution.

            Be prepared to be persecuted by the Catholic church as they force everyone to accept the Eucharist, the symbolic sexual union of the seed of the heavenly host and Mary’s seed. A symbolic child sacrifice of the baby Jesus using the Catholic principle of transmutation. There is a reason Jesus reinforced to us that it is BREAD AND WINE!!

  9. Bella says:

    Thank you for this truth! Ella…God is Lord

  10. william says:

    Cris Putnam Is Wrong, The Pope Is Right!- a U-Tube challenge to chris putnam by a catholic chap thirdeaglebooks

    • john B says:

      Your Catholic view about Mat24, Mk13, Lk21. is incorrect. All three are the same account wherein Jesus expresses by His words a parallelism of the 70Ad destruction of Jerusalem with His return at the end of the age/world.
      Mat24 is a more in-depth record of the same discourse.
      It cannot be denied that the three passages are the one response by Jesus to the question of His disciples.

      Your statement that Jesus returned in power and great glory in 70 Ad and that it is the fulfilment of Dan7 has no scriptural backing. The Apostles taught that there is only “one” return of Jesus by a consuming Fire 2Thes1:7 2Pet3:10 Jude7 wherein He will “judge the Living and the dead” Acts10:42

      Blessings

      john B

      • Cris Putnam says:

        William that reply is comical its so bad. According to your Catholic You Tube Prophet this is not end times prophecy?

        “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” (Mk 13:24-27)

        Utterly absurd.

  11. Stephanie Barnard says:

    By Equation…I would like to share one probability that was missing an explanation> Matt:24: 23-24
    23-Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, “here is Christ”, or there; believe it not
    24-(end of verse) If it were possible, they shall “deceive the very elect”
    Q: How could a man so deceive the world into believing he is the Christ ? and even the very elect for that matter ?
    A: If the relics from the crucifiction of Christ has always been in the possession of the Catholic Church as history proclaims…what is keeping them from using the DNA from the blood that “Christ shed on the cross, nails, and cloth they chased down to retrieve from the woman who wiped Jesus’ face” To CLONE another Christ ? he would not be the first TEST TUBE baby created by science…So through the Death of the Son of God came the Birth of the Son of Perdition< Matt 24: 5 & 24…

    • john B says:

      Hi Stephanie; The Matt24:23,24 refers to false christs and false prophets and not necessarily the antichrist.
      I have heard this cloning of the turin shroud point of view before. The question of forgery is still debatable.

      Apostle Paul used the title “son of perdition” to describe the Lawless one in 2Thes 2:3 KJV
      He does it in the context of the Apostasy (the falling away from the faith) Jesus also used that title in reference to Judas His betrayer Jn17:12
      So; we see the similarity between Judas and the Lawless one. not only in title, but also in religious character. One betrays Jesus, the other betrays The faith.
      I would like to point out here that this Lawless one is manifest within the context of The final Apostasy 2Thes2:3 Furthermore; the Apostle warns to be careful of deceit with regards to this matter.
      The deceit as it stands presently in many churches, is that they are looking for a political figure rather than a religious one!

      I believe that Jesus’ use of that title for Judas has a connectivity to the fact that Judas became possessed ” Satan entered him” Lk22:3
      Likewise, the lawless one referred by Apostle Paul as the “son of perdition” will be a satanically possessed man, for indeed, “his coming is in accord with the activity of satan” 2Thes2:9

      Blessings

      john B

  12. williamgoodnight says:

    You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only

    Mr Putnam i would be glad if you can explain to me why you do think man is saved by faith alone when this is not a biblical teaching.

    the word alone was put in there by martin luther.(a deceiver of men and comes under pauls curse of anathema)

    james quote above shows man is saved through faith and works.
    faith comes first. but works are equally important-jesus said when did you visit me when in prison etc as you do unto these you do unto me etc.

    why do you quote a false teaching man is justified by faith alone when the word alone is not biblical
    thus by using such a word in this context you are promulgating an original lie. no matter what scripture when one pulls up James quote
    You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only
    it clearly says in plain english man is justified by both faith and works.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      William wrote

      You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only

      You lifted this out of context, if you read the surrounding paragraphs it is clear that James was talking about pretenders who merely claim to have faith but actually don’t. It seems at first to contradict Paul’s teaching that one is justified by faith alone (Rom. 3:28), but the two are compatible. In context James, “faith alone” means a bogus kind of faith, mere intellectual agreement without a genuine personal trust in Christ that bears fruit in one’s life. The context in Romans is theological “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:28) All Luther did was point out what was obvious from scripture, justification is by faith alone. When you read the passages in context James is talking about necessary evidence of faith seen in ones’ actions (not theological justification) and there is no disagreement.

      • Brad says:

        The reference to “deeds of the law” in this particular passage means adhering to Mosaic law as the Jews fervently believe (the old covenant).

        James speaks quite clearly regarding this subject (James 2:14-26) in that faith without evidentiary deeds (not works) is worthless.

        Specifically, James 2:17 “…., faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” James 2:26 “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”

        Very clear……. I agree with you 100% William.

        Blessings to all!

      • liam says:

        Mr putnam I am sorry once again like luther you put words into scripture. you wrote pauls teaching man is justified by faith alone.(Rom. 3:28),when one goes to romans 3:28 it says man is justified by faith. now when you say PAUL SAID by faith ALONE , that is a lie.he did not say that and you know it. that is your and Luthers interpretation. Man is justified by faith alone. which is fine if you say that.
        but MY POINT IS WHEN YOU say paul said ALONE people will no dubt read it as thats why is in the bible, AS IF PAUL ACTUALLY USED THIS WORD STOP IT PLEASE. If man is justified by faith alone then you do not need to falsify scripture to prove it as Luther did so at the time. HOW HORRIFIED WOULD MILLIONS OF PROTESTANTS BE IF THEY ACTUALLY LEARNED THE WORD ALONE WAS PUT IN BY LUTHER TO PROVE A POINT(which is called anathema by the writer Paul). I agree debate is good but not falsification to prove a point. you can say yes he alluded to it. But if you keep Using the word ALONE knowing it is not in scripture but implying the word is in there then you are not giving millions of people who rely on people like yourself the chance to actually look at this and make up their own minds. Also the man who you say was such a great theologian Luther called James Epistle straw.HOW CAN YOU QUOTE FROM A MAN WHO INSULTS ONE OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS OF THE BIBLE question Why did Luther do this . Did Luther thus not insult the holy spirit of whom scripture is inspired by calling James epistle STRAW. Luther is an embarrassment, I believe man is Justified by faith as quoted in holy scripture. Stop misquoting scripture please.

        • john B says:

          If I may interject; It is true that the word ALONE is not part of the Apostles vocabulary…The word ALONE is used indicatively by Luther to show that salvation is by Grace through Faith and not faith and works which was/is the Catholic dogma.

          The Christian produces the works of Faith, He does not add it to his faith in order to be saved.
          Neither does Faith neglect the need for Baptism. Acts2:38-41

          Here is a further example; When Luther said Faith Alone he did not in any way dismiss the sacrament of baptism.
          The tragedy of modern protestantism is that it has taken the Word ALONE used by Luther out of it’s context and given the salvation message a false concept whereby the sacrament of baptism is no longer applicable as part of the gospel message. I know of christians who have gone to the grave without ever being baptised and yet held official positions within churches.

          Our works is also of grace! We certainly do not work to earn Grace.. I believe that is what Luther’s Word ALONE was in reference with..

          Blessings

          john B

          • williamgoodnight says:

            john your right and this has been the catholic teaching also(but the church love to make it so complicated with language). but what Luther did was not alluding to anything. you said

            The tragedy of modern protestantism is that it has taken the Word ALONE used by Luther out of it’s context

            well it is a tragedy but its not modern protestantism its historical protestantism. Luther put THAT word not to allude because to allude means to suggest. he wasnt suggesting anything. he was inventing a new, an unofficial(official) dogma of the new counter catholic church.To do this like any good communist revolutionary he needed to make or emphasise differences and create division Chris Putnam a man smarter than I believes and quotes luthers word alone like it is a HOLY REVELATION from a Prophet from god. my question is why he will not look at Luther for deliberately removing bible books from his bible and adding words to scripture.
            perhaps Mr putnam could address these few pearls of wisdom from Mr Luther

            “Be a sinner and sin boldly!” “Let your sins be strong!” “Sin bravely!”

            what does this allude to read by a common man like myself isnt every sin a horror to god and outrage against his perfect majesty.
            what is frustrating to catholics like myself know we are saved through faith(biblicly correct)- we also know we are judged by jesus for what we do Matthew 25:36. the faith alone dogma of Luther is an attempt to create a division in the church which did(does not)exist it is semantics. Catholics believe in the same teaching as protestants but protestants try to convince us(themslves) we dont. when we do(on this point anyhow). THAT WORD ALONE is the dividing point and it is not in the bible. Luther knew the effect this word would have and thats why he deliberately placed it into his own bible mainly not to teach the gospel but to attack the catholic church and create division.Its a bit like when they say ARE YOU BORN AGAIN. reinventing the concept .if they read the bible properly they would find jesus explained what he meant.

            3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER AND THE SPIRIT he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

            was jesus alluding to water baptism to be born again what did john have to say to clear it up.

            Matthew 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

            to be born again we must be baptised in the holy spirit(physical baptism)this has always been understood up until Luther.this is another thing hijacked(semantics) as if Luther invented the concept when its always been our belief. they call it being born again we call it daily conversion which means daily repentance and asking jesus(and the holy spirit) to yes come into out hearts.(as taught by the catholic church).
            more division created through semantics once again.

            LUTHER has been raised up as the foremost teacher of the reformation but one look at his teachings and life as a whole we see what really drove him ,hatred not love of god.-he was a fierce anti-semite also and hated jews.-am sure the evangelicals didnt know that,

            on Luthers unbiblical dogma of private revelation here is what the peter has to say about pauls writings

            2 Peter 3:16
            He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people(Luther) distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

            it is interesting in the first protestant council of churches they couldnt agree on one bit of scripture(despite the fact they all belived in private revelations) many there thought Luther to be too catholic in his teaching.

            Galatians 1:8-9
            8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

            9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

            Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–

            martin Luthers own translation
            For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith ALONE –and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–

            8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

            9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

            note Paul repeats this twice to emphasise.

            Martin Luther Changed and/or Discounted 18 Books of the Bible
            yet here is what he says if the books he removed.

            -Luther: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists–that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

            thus he admits his own guilt.

  13. williamgoodnight says:

    the catholic church teaches people to pray to saints(as we would ask a freind to pray for us on earth so to we ask the church triumphant thats another theological debate) yes- to light candles(symbolic), visit the sick to go to confession take communion and confess our sins(which is also biblical). good works etc. but without faith in jesus christ these works are worthless. so just as the bible teaches we do our works are through our faith. Faith and works accompany one another. luther disagrees and says man is saved by faith alone.
    this alludes that all i have to do is to believe in jesus to be saved.-ok a dying man who is steeped in sin all his life can repent believe in jesus have his sins forgiven and go to heaven that man was saved through faith, yes.

    but if that man was miraculously cured and then went back to his old ways of sinning even though he still had that faith(belief in jesus as a saviour)
    would he still be saved through faith alone if he died suddenly and had just commited a sin /no

    ok lets examine this are christians and catholics
    saved through prayers to jesus- isnt this a work-of faith saying words to god.
    well no1 why would anyone pray to jesus if he does not already have faith.
    catholics do our works because we have faith.this includes all acts such as praying the hail mary-our father- and christian works belief in the sacraments etc. to say we believe we can go to heaven through purely human terms is ridiculous . To say we dont believe in sanctifying grace and that jesus christ came to forgive our sins died on the cross for us through him all men are saved(basic precepts of christianity etc.) is a huge slur on Christ believing catholics which we have had to contend with all our lives. We know of ourselves we are nothing only through christ jesus are we saved. Our works are a natural precursor to our faith which is already there. as james says works without faith is worthless and vice versa. If as james says faith without works is useless then how can man be saved by faith ALONE. man is saved through faith.(biblically correct) luther rejects the one but accepts the other.
    we accept both precepts.
    man on his deathbed worthy of hell can repent and be saved through faith.
    a man who lives a life with knowledge of god and belief in jesus christ but does not do(the works of god) that jesus commanded. is just like the servant in the parable of the talents. in that parable the men who went into the world and doubled the money were called good and faithful servants, the man who went and hid his talent was called wicked. is this not a parable alluding to the fact that we are commanded by god to do good works and will be judged by those works and not by our faith alone. Man is saved through faith—-says the gospel writer.–man is saved through faith alone says martin luther. If it is enough for us to be condemned though we believe in jesus to hell if we sin still and do not repent then is it not true if we belive in jesus and do acts of good works we can be saved through them also.
    as jesus says if you do what i command(works) you are my friends. so if a man can be condemned through his works can a man be saved through them.-yes but only if he has faith in jesus christ.
    Luther makes an error in this and being to proud to admit he got it wrong and also he needed this doctrine so he could have a gun to point at the church.he could never retract it or compromise which is why he called james epistle a work of straw(how dare he insult the early church father and writer of the gospel inspired by the holy spirit).

    there is an interesting video on utube of a african pastor who had a NDE was dead 3 days then came back to life he was shown heaven then hell and was told he went to hell because he had argued with his wife before his car crash and did not forgive her-thus forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us. when he came back he told his story.
    if We are saved by faith alone how come this man was condemned to hell even though with all his heart he believed in jesus christ and lived his life for jesus christ.(should his faith ALONE not have saved him).man is saved through faith(biblically correct). not by faith alone. so what does this tell us about actions(works). read james

  14. williamgoodnight says:

    Purgatory
    purgatory whether one chooses to believe in it or not is nothing to do with salvation through works.
    purgatory comes after judgement. We are judged according to our works through our faith -i believe all prayers and supplications to god for our friends on earth as moses interceded for the jews before god is an act of faith through works. just as caring for the sick and such etc. so when we go up to god after death he judges us according to our faith and works through our faith-faith always comes first.

    so purgatory is a place or event which happens afterwards(after judgement) and does not justify salvation through works alone(thats correct)(.if you mean praying for souls in purgatory. or the church suffering to releases them from the consequences of sin thats something different. this would be classed as an act of mercy as when jesus said when i was in prison when did you visit me. when i was hungry when did you feed me. etc.

    the existence of purgatory itself is another theological discussion which Luther had to get rid of any reference so he could proclaim his ludicrous faith ALONE dogma.which is not biblically correct if one is quoting in reference to the scriptures and if one does is highly misleading. another reason Luther changed or discarded 18 books of the bible some of which are still not added to this day.

    crafty luther who wanted to discredit the church(increase his own mystique) would have saved many a life as well if he had just told the truth and proclaimed.
    man is not saved by works ALONE every catholic and protestant all christians would then have agreed. man is not saved by works alone but by faith.

    one sign of satan is he inverts good for bad and bad for good. is this not how LUTHER did it .It always amazes me at how reformers and modern protestant writers always slant their writings and apologetics not to just learn the gospel but as luther they feel the only way they can prove their own point is to disprove the church view point. this shows a lack of discernment.To have good discernment we need to have a partially open mind not just to embrace new ideas to find out not just what our ideas are but where they come from and what is the spirit behind them.
    does purgatory exist. well the jews had a history of belief praying for the dead(maccebes). but Luther took that book out out and they the remain out of the kjv bible despite being in there for over 1000 years and taken as gospel by all bible believing christians before that.
    Luther admits taking the book of maccebes from the holy bible was wrong because he says.

    Luther: “We must concede to the Papists that we have no knowledge of the scriptures apart from them”

    to remove books from the bible after this admission Luther concedes he wanted to hide biblical knowledge-anyone who follows the teachings of Luther concedes that he is a deceiver by his own admission and his faith alone doctrine is there to cause “ discord among brethren”

    things that god hates
    A proud look”
    A lying tongue”
    A heart that devises wicked imaginations”
    Feet that are swift in running to mischief”
    “He that sows discord among brethren”

    Who are usually the victims of those who wickedly scheme and plot?

    • Brad says:

      Part of the problem in this discussion may be semantics. For example, the word “works” in of itself implies some sort of accomplishment, or even, an effort with some form of re-payment attached to it. As if through one’s holy efforts and/or works one may earn themselves an eternal reward, or a justified place in God’s heavenly Kingdom.

      Whereas if we replace the overused word (of “works”) with a less obligatory notion of “deeds”, it has a very different meaning and interpretation. Most people perform good deeds without ever expecting any form of acknowledgement or re-payment. However, Jesus says quite clearly in Luke 6:49, “the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” Positive actions are without doubt superior to positive thoughts.

      James 2:15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

      Jesus reiterates this point again in John 17:4 “I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.” Deeds/works are a manifestation (an indicator) of faith. One’s faith is illegitimate if it is not revealed by the deeds or by the fruits produced in one’s life.

      This is why, to use Jesus’ description, the Pharisees outer cup was spotless, however, the inside portion of their cup was full of filth. They were all about show without action. They did not demonstrate Christly compassion for those less fortunate than themselves, however, instead felt validated by their self-promulgated, vain, and righteous adherence to the Law. As such, Jesus opposed them.

      Blessings to all,
      Brad

      • williamgoodnight says:

        hi brad i agree with that. but i think the whole problem is LUTHER HIMSELF HE WAS THE PROBLEM AND BECAUSE LIKE ISLAM IF YOU PROVE THE SO CALLED PROPHET WASNT A PROPHET ISLAM DIES AND SO DOES THIS ARGUMENT AND MOST OF PROTESTANTISM. TO CRITICISE LUTHER MEANS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WASNT SO WRONG AFTER ALL. AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO BE SO DIVIDED this type of thinking leads to avenues the churches critics dont want to go.

        the whole point i was trying to make is that both sides do agree but the protestant side refuses to see it because they are stuck on one word put into a sentence by Luther in direct violation of Pauls command). this word has caused more trouble than any other in history of the church(the spirit behind it is division), the word ALONE was placed into the sentence wasnt to make scripture more obvious wasnt to make us all understand it better. it was luthers chance to magnify himself and attack the catholic church. MAN IS DEFINITELY NOT JUSTIFIED BY WORKS ALONE but by faith he could have said(which is what paul said) but no, so by implication of a perpetual lie Catholics are marked by this heinous crime of salvation by works alone(notice Luthers word has taken effect by auto-suggestion). Even chris Putnam is blinded by the world ALONE like it is a magic incantation he can not get passed it.they cannot use that sentence without putting in the word alone as if it was in the original text . their brains then convince themselves it is in there when it is not. This is as Napoleon hill calls it the power of auto-suggestion where if you say something long enough you will believe it. Hitler was a fan.
        man is justified by faith. we know that all Catholics know. so why wont they believe us.
        man is justified by faith why dont they just leave it at that. why add the extra word and I am labouring the point because it is laboured on us.also this has caused division among protestant brethren it is an excuse for a lot of people to sit on their back sides and not live their faith. you have heard the guys who will say are you saved you say yes and they say great and that is it(once saved always saved) which is not biblical and comes from Luthers doctrine man is saved by faith alone Luther even preached it.. It has lead to more in fighting in the protestant churches because they all agree on the alone part(so they cant get to the route of the problem) but one sect will have a problem on anothers application of Luthers doctrine, the question them becomes do they need to do works , well some say yes some say no (all they need is faith)which is the whole reason james wrote his epistle in the first place to stop the insanity spreading.-we know what luther thought of the gospel writer.
        its like the modern heresy saying jesus didnt like religion.(
        James says religion is good.
        yes jesus called us to relationship but that was taken for granted if you wanted to be his follower, religion is also the sacriments and holy orders-marriage-baptism-confirmation-communion-etc if jesus wasnt interested in religion should we get rid of the church buildings.?. This is once again a side swipe at the catholic church and comes from a lutherian viewpoint.(and not explained properly either)
        ..Its an attempt to make people love jesus more by attacking those who love ceremony hang on isnt that the Catholics. Oh and isnt that because they think they can get to heaven by works(alone).
        jesus was religious took part in the religion of the jews he took part in all their feasts he instituted th eLords supper which the apostles and disciples and all Christian did every Sunday). i can understand the thinking behind it because people have forgotten like the Pharisees to have relationship with god but jesus didnt say abondon the jewish religion he said do as they say not as they do.
        but because the spirit behind all protestantism is protest against Catholicism this is a veiled attempt against the Roman catholic church and once more they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater not explaining the religion of Christianity was started by jesus christ himself. every church has people who go out of habit and every church has seekers looking for christ. i used to go to a prayer group at the YMCA and a Baptist paster was re-writing scritpure on paper on the wall all she changed the words to say jesus didnt like religion-i took them down and said write jesus implied do not say he wrote that because he didnt.even a pastor through the power of auto suggestion was misquoting scripture thinking it was in the bible when it wasnt this is very very dangerous. i told her if thats true then why do you go to church and why do you have the religious observance of baptism(no answer)she was a baptist. this is to to with the example of martin Luther and auto suggestion.
        LUTHER IS THE PROBLEM.

        man is justified by faith(biblically correct)
        without good works faith is worthless(also biblically correct). we all believe this.
        why inject the word alone it is not needed. except to cause division create an enemy through implication then lies thus luther was able to justify himself(leaving the catholic church) rather than by giving sound doctrine.

        • john B says:

          William, you said (man is justified by faith, we know that all Catholics know. so why wont they believe us.)

          I was raised a Catholic never was I taught that I was justified only on the basis of what Jesus accomplished for me on the cross.
          I was taught that I had to follow the churches sacramental system to receive grace. i had to pray to the saints and to Mary to receive help in my life.. and i was never taught that i was assured of eternal life unless i kept participating in the mass. That is what I was taught. So; not all Catholics know I would say most do not Know that Jesus did it all for them.

          Thank God, that one evening 32 years ago I opened a bible for the first time and God spoke to by the words I saw in Eph5:18
          For the first time in my life I became aware of the presence of God. This was beyond religion.

          The Lord called me, He justified me, He sanctifies me, He will glorify me because He Loves me and gave Jesus to be my sin bearer “God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the Righteousness of God in Him” 2Cor5:21

          That does not mean that I take the Grace of God in vain.. and I know that there be no good thing in me that is worthy of praise.. I cannot add anything to what Jesus has already done for me.. My responsibility to the calling is that I humble myself (carry the cross daily) trusting in the promise of His salvation. nothing more, nothing less.
          But according to ‘Papal decree’ I am Hell bound because I left the Church of my youth.. Thank God that that God’s Spirit is not one of fear and that I am free to serve the Lord where ever the wind Blows.

          Blessings

          john B

          • john B says:

            The facts of the matter.. Catholics believe that they need the pope’s Church to be saved and protestants believe that they only need Jesus to be saved. I would have to side with the latter.. However; He who is “the author and finisher of our faith” Heb12:2 is neither catholic or protestant and neither am I.

            john B

    • Cris Putnam says:

      purgatory whether one chooses to believe in it or not is nothing to do with salvation through works.

      Purgatory is all about earning your own way apart from the cross. Yet the Bible teaches the opposite, “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.”(Ro 5:6) Purgatory exists because Catholics see the cross as inadequate to justify, inadequate to remove sin. Thus, one must work off sins before one is worthy of heaven, its completely works oriented righteousness and completely undermines the efficacy of the atonement by the cross. The poorly rendered Latin Vulgate translation employed by Romanist theologians has led to great error over the centuries and, unfortunately, a obfuscation of the true Gospel. RC Sproul explains this well:

      Rome set forth their doctrine — and still does — that God will never declare a person just until that person actually, under divine scrutiny, is found to be just…when God looks at us, he will not say that we are just until he sees that we really are just.

      Rome teaches that we cannot be just without grace, that we will never become just without faith, and that we will never become just without the assistance of Christ. We need faith, we need grace, and we need Jesus. We need the righteousness of Christ infused or poured into our soul, but you must cooperate with that grace to such a degree that we will in fact become righteous. If we die with any impurity in our soul, thereby lacking complete righteousness, we will not go to heaven. If no mortal sin is present in our life, we will go to purgatory, which is the place of purging. The point of the purging is to get rid of the dross so that we become completely pure. It may take three years or three million years, but the object of purgatory is to make us righteous so that we can be admitted into God’s heaven.

      Part of the reason for this belief, that justification is rooted in an inherent righteousness in the sinner, comes from something unfortunate in church history. In the early centuries, when the Greek language passed away from the central attention of the church fathers and Latin became the dominant language, many scholars read only the Latin Bible, not the Greek bible, and they borrowed the Roman or Latin word for justification, iustificare, from which we get the English work justification. The Latin verb ficare means “to make” or “to shape” or “to do.” Isutus means “righteousness” or “justice,” so iustificare literally means “to make righteous,” which we believe is what happens in sanctification, not in justification.

      The Greek word that we are dealing with here in the Romans text is the word dikaioo, dikaiosune, which does not mean “to make righteous” but rather “to declare righteous.” In the Roman Catholic view, God will never pronounce a person just or righteous until, by the help of God’s grace and Christ, that person actually becomes righteous. [But] If God were to judge us tonight, what would he find? Would he find sin in our lives? Could he possibly declare us just if he considers only the righteousness that he finds in us today? Remember what the Apostle Paul said: “By the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (3:20). That is precisely why the ground for our justification cannot be found in us or in any righteousness inherent in our souls. That is why we need so desperately what Luther called a iustia alienum, an alien righteousness, a righteousness that comes from outside ourselves. Luther called this righteousness extranos, outside or apart from us.

      In simple terms, this means that the only righteousness sufficient for us to stand before the judgment of God is the righteousness of Christ.

      Excerpt from Romans (St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary) by R.C. Sproul

      • Alien says:

        what you say about Alien?

        • Sun says:

          “But how is it that they have never considered that the ‘great Babylon’ is the whole Earth? I would be a very small and limited God the Creator if I had created only the Earth as an inhabited world! With a beat of My will I have brought forth worlds upon worlds from nothing and cast them as luminous fine dust into the immensity of the firmament.

          “The Earth, about which you are so proud and fierce, is nothing but one of the bits of fine dust rotating in unboundedness, and not the biggest one. It is certainly the most corrupt one, though. Lives upon lives are teeming in the millions of worlds which are the joy of your gaze on peaceful nights, and the perfection of God will appear to you when, with the intellectual sight of your spirits rejoined to God, you are able to see the wonders of those worlds.

          –from valtorta book

          • Cris Putnam says:

            Sun – Because scripture says Rome is Babylon the great harlot. “And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.”” (Re 17:18) In AD 90 – the peak of the Roman Empire – when John wrote the text, the only viable candidate for a “great city that has dominion” was Rome.

      • Sun says:

        Cris….please read valtorta books for more understanding on bible and Catholic Church.

  15. Brad says:

    Well folks, it is now official that Pope Benedict will be stepping aside on February 28, 2013. The first Pope to do have done so in over 600 years. Petrus Romanus should be making his grand and now inevitable appearance shortly onto the world stage!!!

    Blessings to all, and may peace be with you.

    Brad

  16. Pretty! This has been an incredibly wonderful post.
    Thanks for providing these details.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] Blasphemy of  Pope  http://www.logosapologia.org/?p=4363 […]

  2. […] Pope Benedict XVI’s End Time Eisegesiss;DENIES JESUS WAS A PROPHET AND SOUNDS LIKE HE NEVER READ T… […]

  3. […] two churchs are as mothers of Christianity. They are also as Israel's wives Rachel and Leah. Pope Benedict XVI’s End Time Eisegesis — Logos Apologia The pope says Jesus does not describe the end of the world and calls for a new world order: Vatican […]

Speak Your Mind