Sukkafreestudies: The Sacred Doctrine of Christianity:The creeds,say...

Sukkafreestudies: The Sacred Doctrine of Christianity:The creeds,say...: The Sacred Doctrine of Christianity:The creeds,says a poet,are in number some seventy-three Christian sects or denominations,each founde...

The Sacred Doctrine of Christianity:The creeds,says a poet,are in number some seventy-three Christian sects or denominations,each founded upon chosen texts,there are in fact a much greater number,some hundreds,each quite out of harmony with all the others. Each by its sectarian votaries is fondly held to be the sole inheritor of saving truth,and can point with pride to the inerrant texts where the legacy of truth is made to it alone. But every other sect disputes this reading,and with equal assurance and no less pride can point to yet other texts of the true Testament which nullify the pretensions of all the others and leaves itself the sole and universal heir to saving truth. For are not the Christian sects, seventy-three though be their conflicting creeds,one and all of them founded upon the"impregnable rock of the Holy Scripture."As Mr. Gladstone termed it,and the belief that this book is divinely inspired in its every word;that it is the "living Word of God,"the faithful revelation of his divine will to man? Outside the sacred tome itself, no higher authority can be invoked for the inerrant truth of Holy Writ and the utter unity of that truth than the recent(AD 1870) spirit-illumined declaration of the sacred Vatican Council:"These books are sacred and canonical because they contain revelation without error,and because,written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,they have God for their author."Yet we have in the foregoing pages seen great parts of this God-written book sadly lacking in inspiration and truth;and to explain or attenuate this,one might suspect that such parts of it may be excepted from the general rule of inspiration and inerrancy. But in this they err,to believe,the Holy Ghost speaking lately through Pope Leo 13:in his encyclical Provid.Deus, where this error is roundly refuted:"it will never be lawful to restrict inspiration merely to certain parts of the Holy Scripture,or to grant the sacred writers could have made a mistake. They render in exact language,with infallible truth,all that God commanded and nothing else;without that,God would not be the author of the Scripture in its entirety."...Is it Gods word?...

Sukkafreestudies: THE "BLESSED NAME" OF JESUS: It may be noted first...

Sukkafreestudies: THE "BLESSED NAME" OF JESUS: It may be noted first...: THE "BLESSED NAME" OF JESUS: It may be noted first,in passing,that the name of the "Christ",whether God or man,was n...

THE "BLESSED NAME" OF JESUS: It may be noted first,in passing,that the name of the "Christ",whether God or man,was not, to himself and his family and people, Jesus at all. His given name in Hebrew, or Aramaic, the language in which he spoke is Yehoshua[ plain Joshua]. The meaning of the name is "Yahveh is salvation", Jesus is the later Greek form of the name Joshua. The added title "Christ"is another Greek translation or substitute for the Hebrew Scriptural word" Messiah", which mean "anointed". John, if he wrote the gospel attributed to him, himself a Hebrew but writing in current Greek, correctly explains this when he tells of Andrew's coming to his brother Simon Peter and announcing: " We have found the Messiah, which being interpreted, the" Christ"[ John 1:41]. Both words, the Hebrew Mashiach and its Greek equivalent Christos, means simply," the anointed" The Galilean bearer of this name[ Hebrew, Joshua; Greek, Jesus],by this token cannot be the virgin-born subject of the "prophecy" of Isaiah, as claimed by Matthew; for Isaiah declares that his virgin, bearing a son," shall call his name Immanuel"[ Isa.7:14, quoted in Matt.1:23]; this name as Matthew explains in the same verse,"being interpreted is, God[ EL ] with us"[ Matt.1:23], whereas Joshua[ Jesus ] means as we have seen, " Yahveh is salvation" So the virgin-born Joshua or Jesus of Matthew cannot possibly be, all other proofs aside, be the same infant as the virgin-born Immanuel of Isaiah. It has already been fully proved that Isaiah's unfulfilled "prophecy" regarding his "sign" of the outcome of the war of the two kings against Jerusalem does not at all refer to the child of Mary, 750 years later. We need not dwell again here on this prophecy of miraculous birth, but proceed to some other compelling proofs of the persistent errancy and inconsistency of Matthew and his fellow propagandists of this Jesus as the Christ. The great national hero who should come to avenge the Chosen Children of Yahveh against the Assyrians and other oppressors is not once intimated in the Hebrew Scriptures to be anything other than a human being," of the seed of David"who as a king, should re-establish the throne of David on earth, as soften promised and proclaimed by Yahveh[ e.g. Isa..11:1;Luke. 1:32, Acts 2:30]. Never once is it hinted that Yahveh himself," Man of war"though he was, would come in person to accomplish the liberation and restoration of his Chosen People, after failing so signally to save them from destruction and captivity. Nor is there so much as an ambiguous or doubtful bit of revelation that Yahveh had a son by the name Joshua, whom he would send at some time in the future to fill the role of the promised hero, and neither re-establish the throne of David on earth or set up a new religion promising a Kingdom in heaven to the disappointed expectants of the renew earthly Kingdom of Israel...is it gods word...