Daily Life of Man

Happy New Year! Here's a daily Bible reading plan for my Jewish-Catholic brothers and sisters: ICS Download (If you want to import it to your own Outlook Calendar): outlook.live.com/owa/calendar/4…

@_BrettRyanMusic @hdpayens Melchizedek of Genesis cannot be Jesus Himself because Hebrews says: "where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" (6:20). Jesus obtained His priesthood through what He suffered, after He died.

Jesus Christ IS Melchizedek in the Old Testament. In Genesis 14—long before the Law, the tabernacle, or any Levitical priest—Abraham met this mysterious Priest of the Most High God. No mother. No father. No genealogy recorded. No beginning of days or end of life. He brought bread and wine, blessed Abraham, and received tithes from him. That was Jesus Christ Himself appearing centuries before Bethlehem—the eternal “I AM” who later declared, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). Abraham’s faith was counted as righteousness before circumcision and long before the Law. Yet the One he honored and submitted to was the pre-incarnate Christ. Jesus is the eternal High Priest after the order of Melchizedek—King of Righteousness and King of Peace—without beginning and without end (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5-7). This order is eternal. Abraham stood face-to-face with the living Christ in the Old Testament. The same Jesus who met Abraham is interceding for you right now. The Greek word in Heb 7:3 is ἀφωμοιωμένος (aphomoioō) — ‘made like’ or ‘rendered as a facsimile’ of the Son of God (only NT use). Not ‘resembles’ in a casual way, but deliberately presented that way in Scripture. The Holy Spirit omitted Melchizedek’s genealogy on purpose so he appears eternal — exactly like the pre-incarnate Christ who met Abraham with bread & wine, King of Righteousness & Peace (Gen 14, Ps 110, Heb 7). Jesus is that eternal Priest-King. The ‘likeness’ is perfect correspondence, not contradiction. Simple as Christ From the foundations of the world, the Lamb was slain. Satan’s prideful rebellion—drawing one-third of the children with him—became the origin of death, marking him the son of perdition. God’s eternal plan redeems the faithful from that very essence, defeating Satan and death before this age ever began. Jn 8:58 is present tense existence (“I AM”), not preordination—Jews tried to stone Him for claiming Yahweh’s Name (Ex 3:14). Heb 7:3 explicitly says Melchizedek “made like the Son of God” with no genealogy—a Christophany. Matt 1 is His human line; eternal Son has none (Heb 7:3).

The 'Angel of the Lord' is not a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. Aquinas explains why. And the answer is more precise than most Catholics realize. A thread.

@realmikolson The Bible teaches all of this in Hebrews 13:17.

I’ve noticed Roman Catholics often have to straw-man the Protestant (biblical/apostolic) position on Mary in order to make their own view seem more legitimate. “…who think Mary is just some chick.” No one thinks this. Everyone acknowledges her importance in the Gospel story. The difference is that we don’t add to what the Bible—the only record we have from the apostles and from Jesus Himself—actually teaches about her. Neither the Bible nor the primitive/early church teaches that Mary: - was immaculately conceived (without sin), like Jesus was - was bodily assumed into heaven (without dying) - is our “co-mediator” - is our “Queen” (“Queen of Heaven”) - is “the Ark of the Covenant” (Jesus is, not Mary) - hears and answers our prayers - intercedes for us - calms the wrath of Jesus against us - imparts good works to us for justification - ought to be knelt before in worship (“veneration”) The burden of proof is on Roman Catholics to demonstrate where/when Jesus or an apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit taught these things about Mary, because the Bible simply does not. And if the Bible doesn’t, we have no legitimate obligation to believe it.

@realmikolson Actually all of those claims about her are found within the early church. Either in the Bible itself, or in the first 100 years after the finishing of the Bible

@Truth_matters20 The problem with these sorts of explanations is that you can't be familiar at all with the actual apparitions in order for them to work. You have to be entirely ignorant of them except for their name.

Mary has appeared to no one. These alleged apparitions are delusions at best and demonic entities at worst.

@BetweenThieves7 @hdpayens A lot of assumptions there about what the scriptures actually mean. What makes you think your interpretation is correct, as opposed to the alternative contrary interpretations?

The problem Catholics have is the charge of corruption. You see, 100 years is a long time to corrupt a church. 200 years easier. 400 years is a lot of time. If corruption isnt possible. Why does Paul write letters of correction. And Peter. And James. Why does Paul mention "super apostles" and "wolves" and "waterless clouds" and "false prophets" in the 50s? Why does he positively affirm they already existed and would overtake the church? Why do the apostles mention a future apostasy before the end of the world? Why do they mention a false church (the whore) married to "Babylon" (1 Peter says this is Rome). Why are we told in Daniel that the Roman empire would mix with other cultures and make one, final, Roman empire who would support antichrist? You see. The Catholic narrative is positively destroyed by the scripture itself. The churches in Revelation are already corrupt, already weakened, already warned, and God even says He will remove their local bodies if they allow it to continue. How do you fit a declining world headed to apostasy into amillennial eschatology? We can argue the canon. But the scripture we agree to, describes a persecuted remnant, not a roman backed political powerhouse, ruling the current world.

Most Protestant objections to Catholic doctrine share the same hidden flaw. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Every objection rests on an assumption. And most of the time, that assumption is never examined. Here's a simple 3-step method for working through any Protestant challenge to Catholic teaching. **Step 1: Name the assumption.** Before engaging the objection, ask: what has to be true for this argument to work? Most anti-Catholic arguments assume that Scripture is self-interpreting, that the Church was corrupted early, or that silence in the New Testament equals prohibition. Name it out loud. The whole argument often collapses once you do. **Step 2: Test the assumption against Scripture.** Always start here. Not because Scripture alone settles everything, but because it's shared ground. Ask whether Scripture actually teaches what the assumption requires. More often than not, it doesn't. It frequently points in the opposite direction (Matt 16:18, 1 Tim 3:15, John 20:23). **Step 3: Show what Christians actually believed.** Not what Luther said in 1517. What Ignatius said in 107 AD. What Irenaeus said in 180 AD. What Cyprian said in 250 AD. The burden of proof falls on whoever is claiming 1,500 years of Christianity got it wrong. Most objections don't survive all three steps. What's the Protestant objection you find hardest to answer? Drop it below.

@xmikemac 4. This way, the priest acting In Persona Christi, is literally merely a mouthpiece for Christ and His grace. He doesn't actually have power in himself. But this is important because God works through people, and almost never directly. Although He sometimes acts extraordinarily.

@xmikemac 3. Modern confessionals are the result of 2000 years of experience, because the church was not put into stasis in the 1st century. The eastern rites make the "to Christ" part much more clear in that the priest hears your confession only before the icon of Christ.

Every now and then, somebody makes a theological argument so polished, so confident, and so flat-out goofy that you have to blink twice and make sure you read it right. This idea that Christians are “doing it wrong” when they confess their sins directly to God is one of those arguments.🤣 It sounds fancy because it comes wrapped in Old Testament priests, a dash of apostolic authority, a smidge of church tradition, and just enough religious smoke to make folks think something profound is happening. But once you open the Bible and read it without wearing medieval fog goggles, the whole thing starts falling apart like a cheap lawn chair at a Baptist picnic. Shout out Southern Baptists. The claim is basically this: the Bible never teaches confession directly to God, so if you bow your head, humble your heart, and confess your sin to the Lord through Jesus Christ, you are somehow out of order. Now watch this— if you’re a broken sinner crying out to God for mercy, you’ve now committed a procedural violation. Well, bless your lil heart. 🥰 But that ain’t biblical Christianity. That is religious bureaucracy with incense and better architecture. Fact: David didn’t get that memo. In Psalm 32:5, he says, “I acknowledged my sin to You… I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,’ and You forgave the iniquity of my sin.” That’s about as subtle as a brick through a stained-glass window (Baptist church windows only, not Catholic cathedrals - admission: cathedrals are the best buildings ever built!) David confessed to the Lord, and the Lord forgave him. No booth. No sacramental appointment. No spiritual customer-service desk. Just a guilty man and a merciful God. Then in Psalm 51, David does it again **GASP** after committing some of the darkest sins in Scripture. Adultery. Deception. Murder. This wasn’t no “I got a little snippy in traffic” sin. This was full-blown moral collapse! And what does he say? “Have mercy on me, O God.” He goes straight to God because sin is ultimately against God, and forgiveness ultimately comes from God. Jesus Himself makes the point in Luke 18. The tax collector stands there ashamed and says, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” And Jesus says that man went home justified. Not “pending further review.” Not “kinda forgiven after priestly processing.” Justified. Period. That ought to end the argument right there, right? Well, apparently I’ve got to keep explaining the obvious because theology sometimes attracts those who can complicate a glass of water. Now, does the Bible teach confessing sins to others? Of course it does.✅ James says to confess your sins to one another and pray for one another. If you sinned against somebody, go make it right. If you need accountability, talk to a mature believer. If your sin damaged the church, there may be a church issue to deal with. Nobody is saying confession is always private. That ain’t the argument. The argument is whether the Bible teaches that you must confess to a priest as the required ‘channel’ of forgiveness. And the answer is no, it don’t. That is where the argument kinda moonwalks right past the text. Yes, John 20 talks about apostolic authority. Yes, Matthew 18 talks about binding and loosing. Those passages matter. But they don’t cancel Psalm 32, Psalm 51, Luke 18, 1 John 1:9, Hebrews, and the whole New Testament truth that Jesus is our great High Priest. Hebrews says we can come boldly to the throne of grace. First Timothy 2:5 says there is ONE mediator between God and man— Christ Jesus. One. Not Jesus plus a mandatory middleman. Not Jesus plus a booth. Not Jesus plus a religious permission slip. Jesus. So yes, confess your sins directly to God. Confess honestly. Confess deeply. But DO NOT let anybody tell you that going directly to God through Jesus Christ is “doing it wrong.” That ain’t biblical. It’s just plain silly with a robe on. The veil was torn. Act like it.

@_OKJ__ All Christians are only saved by the Lordship of Jesus. All non-christian, if saved, are saved by the same thing. Christianity makes that far easier by bringing that to awareness. If you're in a desert, wandering randomly, you may stumble upon an oasis. Or you can get directions.

Yesterday I posted a fictional dialogue that culminated in a dilemma for Christianity. Ironically, most of the Christian responses only convinced me that the argument is even stronger and more difficult to escape than I originally thought. In simple terms, the dilemma is this….either people who never heard of Jesus, Christianity, or the Gospel can still make Heaven, or they are condemned to Hell purely because of ignorance of something they never had access to or heard about. Think about the billions of people throughout history who never even had the opportunity to hear of Christianity before and AFTER Jesus …Native Americans before European contact, isolated tribes in the Amazon or Sentinel Island, ancient Chinese dynasties, precolonial Africans, Indigenous Australians…..entire civilizations that lived and died before the Gospel ever reached them. Even today, there are still remote groups all over the world who have never encountered Christianity or the gospel. If such people can still be saved without knowledge of Jesus or the Gospel, then Christianity as religion and Christian evangelism becomes irrelevant and unecessary for salvation BY DEFINITION. At that point, salvation depends on sincerity, morality, conscience, or how one lives ….not on accepting Christ, believing the Gospel, or even knowing Christanity exists. Gladly, almost every Christian who responded rejected the idea that these people automatically go to Hell. Most instead argued that God judges them “by the light they had,” “by their hearts,” or “by how they lived.” But that only strengthens the conclusion that Christianity is unnecessary for salvation. Other Christians appealed to verses about Jesus descending to preach to the dead. But this does not solve the dilemma either. If people can accept salvation after death without ever hearing the Gospel in their lifetime, then earthly evangelism and preaching of the gospel becomes unnecessary…also this explanation only counts for people who were already dead at the time of Jesus.. not the hundreds of millions that never encountered the gospel after his alleged resurrection and ascension. Worse, it raises another problem…..many people would actually be in a BETTER position never hearing Christianity at all, since exposure to competing doctrines, denominations, fear based preaching, or disbelief could supposedly place them at greater risk…regardless of how they lived their lives. A risk they wouldn’t have had if they just lived their lives. Some Christians then retreat to the usual “Gods ways are mysterious,” but mystery is not a solution to a contradiction . The dilemma still stands. If ignorance of Christianity can still lead to salvation, Christianity is not necessary for salvation. If ignorance condemns people eternally for circumstances beyond their control, thenthe Christian soteriological system is deeply unjust. Have a beautiful week!

@BibleInContext1 Then why are people saved in the Roman Catholic Church?

Your “church” calls itself the ROMAN Catholic church. There is NO salvation in the Roman Catholic institution. Your church is a Cult that will lead you to hell! Ready to talk publicly on camera now??

@Matthew56193629 Do you need to listen to the Holy Spirit when He decides not to tell you something directly, but instead speaks through another person?

Catholic: How do you know how many books are in the bible? Me: By the Holy Spirit. Catholic: How do you understand what it means? Me: By the Holy Spirit. Catholic: How do you know you are saved? Me: By the Holy Spirit. Catholic: How do you know not to pray to the saints? Me: By the Holy Spirit. Catholic: How do you know the Eucharist remains bread and wine? Me: By the Holy Spirit. Catholic: How do you get saved? Me: By the Holy Spirit. Catholic: How do you know that you are saved? Me: By the Holy Spirit. Catholic: Why won't you answer any of my questions? Me:

@MattMaximilian7 @XtianConsMemes @realmikolson Fair enough.

@DailyLifeofMan @XtianConsMemes @realmikolson That’s fair but my point was he was asking a question about it and then was trying to insert his beliefs into the answer. It didn’t make sense to do.

Hmm, as far as I’ve read, the Roman Catholic Church does not define which sins are mortal and which sins aren’t. There’s no official list. Secondly, the Bible—the only record of teachings we have from Jesus and the apostles—makes no reference to “mortal” sins vs any other kind of sin. Thirdly, we see the church in Berea commended as “noble” for testing the preaching of the Apostle Paul himself with the written Scriptures (Acts 17). Is Luke commending them for being in a state of “mortal sin”?

@MattMaximilian7 @XtianConsMemes @realmikolson I don't know if I would say this. The Magisterium is the supreme governing authority for the faith. So, anybody desiring to be in the body of Christ needs to accept it. Even Protestants. That's why it's not good to be in schism.

@XtianConsMemes @DailyLifeofMan @realmikolson Okay? You’re not Catholic Lol The point is if you’re in the Church, and purposely go against its teaching, which is Catholic faith is good because it’s from the Tradition of the Faith, then it’s a sin. If you’re not a Catholic, don’t worry about it.

@XtianConsMemes @MattMaximilian7 @realmikolson Anything the Magisterium decides is mandatory is mandatory for the faithful (Hebrews 13:17). It's a sin to disobey our leaders, and to sin is to put oneself into a fearful position regarding your soul (10:26-27).

Actually, I'm convinced it "isn't" good. There aren't mandatory fasts in the New Testament, certainly not mandatory fasts that are required for your salvation. It isn't good (with fasts, mass attendance, etc) to add to Scripture and make those additions essential to salvation. It's actually bad.

@realmikolson It's okay to question Rome. But our consciences are not perfect, and so obedience to proper authority is a higher virtue than obedience to the self.

@DailyLifeofMan Online Roman Catholics just make stuff up lol

Translation: “If you question the teachings of Rome, you’re going to hell.” This is not how Christian epistemology works, friends (see Acts 17, for one). There is a final authority—a final Word, and it isn’t across the Tiber. It’s on a bookshelf near you, and it’s worth the read.

@XtianConsMemes @realmikolson Yeh

@DailyLifeofMan @realmikolson The Catholic church teaches that skipping Mass intentionally is a grave matter that becomes a mortal sin. Skipping a mandatory fast is the same. These beliefs don't come from the Bible, but doing either condemns you to Hell eternally.

@GrandMosk @realmikolson 2. I.e. the circumcision party was not considered "noble" for dissenting, even though they had better arguments from scripture. So Luke is not pro-dissent. He is pro-finding apostolic truth in Scripture, even when it's not obvious.

@GrandMosk @realmikolson Another person already answered the mortal sin thing, so I will defer. The Berean thing is important though because both the process and the conclusion were relevant.

@DEsceptikon @realmikolson It's a case by case sort of thing. The reason there's no list is because it is meant to be under the advisement of the confessor you are in relationship with. Sin is interpersonal, and so an impersonal list would be unfitting. It also helps us to learn obedience to authority.

@DailyLifeofMan @realmikolson Ok. Which ones?