Why Did God Block the Access to the Tree of Life?

Dear friends:

Have you ever puzzled over "Why did God bar the access to the Tree of Life?

Here is a possible answer. Click the link for other related questions.

What is the meaning of the tree of life? - GotQuestions.org 

Question: "What is the meaning of the tree of life?"

Answer: The tree of life, referred to in Genesis, is the symbol of God’s provision for immortality in the Garden of Eden. Of all the trees that were in the Garden of Eden, two were named for their great importance, but just as one—the tree of life—was a blessing to Adam and Eve, the other was to become a curse for all of their posterity. “And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground – trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:9).

The Lord told Adam that he was free to eat the fruit of any tree in the Garden, except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for by doing so he would surely die (Genesis 3:16-17). The tree of life was provided to be continuous reminder that immortality was a consequence of obedience. As long as Adam and Eve were obedient and did not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they had access to the tree of life. Once they sinned, they were driven from the Garden, and God placed an angel with a flaming sword to guard the tree of life so they would no longer have access to it. Eternal life was now no longer theirs. Just as God had warned, they died, and through Adam all men after him would die (Romans 5:12). 

By barring access to the tree of life, God showed compassion in His omniscience. Knowing that because of sin, life would be filled with sorrow and toil, He graciously limited the number of years men would live. To live eternally in a sinful state with its results—pain, disease, heartache, toil, and grief—would mean endless agony for humanity, with no hope of the relief that comes with death. By limiting our lifespan, God gives us enough time to come to know Him and His provision for eternal life through Christ, but spares us the misery of an endless existence in a sinful condition.

Because God knew that Adam would fail the conditions of his immortality, He provided for One who would redeem fallen mankind. Through one man, Adam, sin entered the world, but through another Man, Jesus Christ, redemption through the forgiveness of sin is available to all (Romans 5:17). Those who avail themselves of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross will see the tree of life again, for it stands in the middle of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2, 22:1-2). Its water is the constant flow of everlasting life from God’s throne to God’s people.Recommended Resources: Basic Theology by Charles Ryrie and Logos Bible Software.

God Will Make a Way, Where there Seems to Be No Way

Dear friends: 

We live in a world full of uncertainties, with the recent terror attacks in Paris, we are surely saddened and/or threatened; as we ages we are also facing a lot of unknowns in our earthly path.  We surely need to be connected with our Creator God and His loving hand will guide our ways through our earthly journey and bring us an eternal life if we allow Him to turn us towards Him. 

I'd like to share with you this song which has comforted me in the past.

( the lyric and chord are included below)

God Will Make a Way (with lyrics) - Don Moen - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zo3fJYtS-o

G                           D

God will make a way

C                         G

Where there seems to be no way

C                             G

He works in ways we cannot see

Am7                    D7

He will make a way for me

G                      D

He will be my guide

C                     G

Hold me closely to His side

C                                   G

With love and strength for each new day

Am7                    D

He will make a way

Cmaj7                 G

He will make a way

Eb                      F

By a roadway in the wilderness

Bb

He'll lead me

Eb            F                 G

And rivers in desert will I see

C                                     D

Heaven and earth will fade

Bm                     Em

But His Word will still remain

C                 D                            E

He will do something new today

Is It a Circular Reasoning to Justify Bible?

Dear friends:

Have you ever suspected all the Bible quoting to prove Bible is "God's Word inspired by God" is just a circular reasoning? If so, you may examine part of this following article. ( or click the link for the whole article)

Why should I believe the Bible? - GotQuestions.org

www.gotquestions.org/why-should-I-believe-the-Bible.html

...it is important not to let circular reasoning become the justification for believing the Bible. We cannot say that one should believe the Bible simply because the Bible says it should be believed. If, however, the truth claims of the Bible are found true whenever it is possible to test their veracity or are proved true during historical and scientific discovery, then the internal claims of the Bible’s own trustworthiness are more compelling. The internal evidence works in tandem with the external.

The internal evidence of Scripture’s veracity provides many compelling arguments for why one should believe the Bible. First, the unique message of the Bible sets it apart from other religious texts. The Bible, for instance, teaches that mankind is inherently evil and deserving of eternal death. If man were responsible for the content of the Bible, the view of humanity would not be so dark—we tend to make ourselves look good. The Bible also teaches that humans can do nothing of themselves to remedy their natural state. This, too, goes against human pride.

The unity of the biblical message is further reason for why one should believe the Bible. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1,550 years, with at least 40 human writers, most of whom did not know each other and were from varying backgrounds (king, fisherman, tax collector, shepherd, etc.). The Bible was written in various environments (desert, prison, royal court, etc.). Three different languages were used to write the Bible, and, despite covering controversial subjects, it carries one harmonious message. The circumstances surrounding the writing of the Bible would seem to guarantee its fallibility, and, yet, the message from Genesis to Revelation is uncannily consistent.

Another reason why one should believe the Bible is its accuracy. The Bible should not be confused with a science textbook, but that does not mean that the Bible does not speak to issues that are scientific in nature. The water cycle was described in Scripture centuries before it was a scientific discovery. In some cases science and the Bible have seemed to be at odds with each other. Yet, when science has advanced, the scientific theories have proved wrong and the Bible proved right. For example, it used to be standard medical practice to bleed patients as a cure for illness. Many people died because of excessive blood loss. Now medical professionals know that bloodletting as a cure for most diseases is counterproductive. The Bible always taught that “the life of a creature is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11).

The Bible’s truth claims concerning world history have also been substantiated. Skeptics used to criticize the Bible for its mention of the Hittite people (e.g., 2 Kings 7:6). The lack of any archaeological evidence to support the existence of a Hittite culture was often cited as a rebuttal against Scripture. In 1876, however, archaeologists discovered evidence of the Hittite nation, and by the early 20th century the vastness of the Hittite nation and its influence in the ancient world was common knowledge.

The scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible is important evidence of the Bible’s trustworthiness, but the Bible also contains fulfilled prophecies. Some of the biblical writers made claims about future events centuries in advance. If any one of the events predicted had occurred, it would be astounding. But the Bible contains many, many prophecies. Some of the predictions were fulfilled in a short amount of time (Abraham and Sarah had a son, Peter denied Jesus three times, Paul was a witness for Jesus in Rome, etc.). Other predictions were fulfilled hundreds of years later. The 300 messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus could not have reasonably been fulfilled by one person unless some greater power was involved. Specific prophecies like Jesus’ birthplace, activities, manner of death, and resurrection demonstrate the preternatural(* beyond what is normal or natural.) accuracy of Scripture.

When it is put to the test, the Bible is proved true in every area. Its truth extends to the spiritual, as well. That means that when the Bible says the Hittite nation existed, then we can believe that there were Hittites, and when the Bible teaches that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23) and the “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), then we need to believe that, too. And, when the Bible tells us that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8) and that “whoever believes in [Jesus] shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16), then we can and should believe that, 

also.Recommended Resources: Why Should I Believe the Bible?: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Scripture's Trustworthiness by Strauss & Beck and Logos Bible Software.

Does modern science disprove Bible miracles ?

Why You Should Believe the Bible | Ignite Your Faith 

www.christianitytoday.com/.../why-believe-bible-true....

Is the Bible true from cover to cover? How do we know it's really God's Word? And why are there 

so many translations?

...

Does modern science disprove Bible miracles like the crossing of the Red Sea and Jesus' resurrection?

No, although many people are critical of the Bible because it records events that seem fantastic, the stuff of fairy tales. But I think this discussion is less about what the Bible records than about our beliefs concerning the nature of reality.

Most people believe in a God. Most people believe God was involved in the creation of the world. And most people would say God is bigger than the world itself. So why are they skeptical of supernatural events?

If God created the world, doesn't it make sense that he'd be interested in what goes on in the world? And if God is bigger and more powerful than all creation, and he steps into the world, wouldn't people be dazzled by what he does? Fantastic events are possible. Miracles can happen. You can't just disqualify them...

Here's something about the Bible that I think holds water with non-Christians: The Bible wasn't put together in secret; it was a very public process. People have been able to closely examine its claims all along, even to this day. And Christians welcome that kind of scrutiny, because we know our Bible can stand up to it.

That's not true of The Book of Mormon. Mormons don't want that kind of scrutiny and historical research. Same thing with the Qur'an. Historical, critical study of the Qur'an is something Islam doesn't want to do. But the Bible is very much an "open book."

Another thing: We have multiple Greek manuscripts for the New Testament. The Bible wasn't written by just one person, like the Book of Mormon, where Joseph Smith claimed to have found the Mormon scriptures on golden tablets that he miraculously translated.

The Bible contains many points of view. Four people tell me the story of Jesus, stories that were open to the public even in that day. People could read the stories and react to them. The life of Christ was evaluated, studied and examined by the people who had lived when Jesus lived, and could verify the accuracy of those stories. And to me, that's a valuable difference.

...

Is the Bible really inspired, just because it claims to be? If a person claims to be George Washing ton, that doesn't make him George Washington, no matter how sincerely he claims it.

But I could investigate him pretty carefully to find out whether or not he's really George Washington. That's really not hard to do.

In a similar way, I can do historical research on the Bible to find out if it's reliable. When Luke talks about sailing a ship from Troas to Neapolis in the Book of Acts, does he know what he's talking about? Yes, he does.

Proving that the Bible is inspired—"God-breathed" is literally what it says in 2 Timothy 3:16—is more difficult. I believe the Bible is inspired. When I read the Bible, I often sense something resonating in my own spirit. That's compelling, and that gives me confidence.

But non-believers may not find that to be true. A skeptic whose heart isn't in the right place probably won't be receptive to the words of the Bible.

The Bible isn't magic. You can't simply read it and expect it to show itself as inspired.

How do you deal with doubts like, "Maybe I only think the Bible is the Word of God because I've spent my whole life in church. Maybe if I opened my eyes, I'd see it's all a sham."

The first thing you need to know is that it's OK to have doubts. The second thing is that you're not alone; many Christians have had the same doubts. The third thing is that there are answers. The Christian leaders around you should be able to help you work through your doubts. And beyond that, there are excellent books that will answer your questions. (See "Want to Know More?" below.)

Finally, test the Bible for yourself. Ask God to speak to you through his Word. Encounter the Bible on your own. You can't inherit somebody else's experience. You've got to have an authentic experience for yourself.

That's not something you can force, but as you struggle with the Bible, I do believe God will reveal himself. And once he does, you'll have confidence in his Word. It's a part of stepping out of your parents' or grandparents' faith and saying, "This faith is now mine."

Dr. Gary Burge is Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. He helped translate the Gospel of John for the New Living Translation (NLT) of the Bible.

10 Major Flaws of Evolution

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system’s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present.  Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution.  The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin’s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell.  The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance – they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
According to information science, information can only be produced by intelligence. Highly complex information must originate from a highly intelligent source.  DNA is by far the most compact and complex information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead-sized amount of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive, can contain multiple copies of all the information necessary to build and maintain things as complex as the human brain and body, and is self-replicating.  However, the proponents of evolution believe that random chance, not intelligence, gave rise to all of the information found in DNA.  Ironically, evolutionary scientists involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project search the sky with massive radio telescopes, hoping to detect even simple patterns in radio signals which might be a sign of otherworldly intelligence, all the while ignoring the clear evidence of intelligence built into the incredibly complex DNA patterns of every living creature right here on Earth. 

3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution.
Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information.  Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information.  The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect.  Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies!  Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information.  This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative.
The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types.  Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types.  However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones.  For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years.  This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal.  In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong. 

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.
If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life.  Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. Many supposed “ape-men” are very clearly apes, and most fossils hailed with much fanfare as “missing links” are later quietly reclassified as simply extinct varieties of non-human primates.  Evolutionists now admit that other so-called “ape-men” were fully human.  The body hair and the blank expressions of the supposedly primitive humans in these models don’t come from the bones, but from the evolutionary assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone’s eyes based on a few old bones.  The “missing links” are still missing.

7. The radioactive dating methods that evolutionists use to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are based on questionable assumptions and give unreliable results.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine a rock’s age assume that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can be accurately estimated, that no isotopes moved into or out of the rock after its formation (closed system), and that radioactive decay rates have always been constant.  However, the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes can rarely be estimated with reasonable accuracy.  In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that hydrothermal fluids (hot, mineral-rich water) often transport both parent and daughter isotopes from one rock to another, invalidating the closed system assumption.  In fact, this process is often cited as a reason for rejecting dates that don’t fit the evolutionary timeline.  What is not commonly known is that radioactive dating methods usually give a number of different results for the same formation and often even for the same rock!  In practice, geologists choose the “correct” age from among these different results based on the age expected from the evolutionary timeline.  This is a classic case of circular thinking!  Also, different methods give different results, with heavier isotopes consistently giving older ages than lighter isotopes for the same rock.  This pattern should not exist if radioactive decay rates have always been the same.  Furthermore, lava flows with known historical ages often date as millions or even billions of years old.  If radioactive dating methods can be off by so much for rocks of known age, how can they be considered reliable for rocks of unknown age?

8. “Leftover” body structures are not evidence for evolution.
Evolutionists point to vestigial organs (supposedly “leftover” body structures with no know function) as evidence of evolution. However, it’s impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there’s always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. In fact, over 100 organs formerly thought of as vestigial are now known to perform essential functions. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs and only a small number are still considered vestigial. It is increasingly clear that vestigial organs are not the result of evolution but simply examples of scientific ignorance.  It’s also worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. Proponents of evolution need to provide examples of developing organs that are not yet fully functional but can be shown to be increasing in complexity with each succeeding generation.  No such examples exist.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. 
When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
There are two types of science.  Operational science deals with the present, and arrives at conclusions based on repeated observations of existing phenomena.  Historical science deals with the past, which is not repeatable.  Investigations of origins clearly fall within the scope of historical science, and therefore cannot draw definitive conclusions.  Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. This interpretation is greatly influenced by one’s prior beliefs.  If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, themselves, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.

Recommended books on evolution:

Refuting Evolution I and II (Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)
The Answers Book (Revised and expanded by Ken Ham, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Dr. Carl Wieland)
Not By Chance! (Dr. Lee Spetner)
Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Dr. Michael Behe)
In the Beginning was Information (Dr. Werner Gitt)
Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism (Phillip Johnson)
A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Dean L. Overman)
The Creation Hypothesis (J. P. Moreland)
The Case for a Creator (Lee Strobel)

Miracle of the Sun and "Medjugorje affliction."

Dear friends:

Have you heard about MEDJUGORJE Appirations before? After more than a few decades' investigations, Vatican recently cracks them down. ( click the link below to see the details)

However, it is interesting to trace its legendary stories.  

Report: Vatican cracks down on Medjugorje visionaries 

September 6, 2015 by Deacon Greg Kandra.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0079a.html (for the whole article, click the link above)

MEDJUGORJE, YUGOSLAVIA 1981 -
As the decade of the 1980s began, few people outside of Yugoslavia had heard of Medjugorje (pronounced Med-ju-gory-ah): a small and remote farming community nestled between the hills in the province of Hercegovina, in southwestern Yugoslavia.[1] In the summer of 1981, however, events transpired that would transform this once-obscure community into an international pilgrimage center. In fact, over a ten year period, some 10 to 15 million people from five different continents have journeyed to Medjugorje.[2] This is even more significant when it is recognized that Yugoslavia is a Communist country.
What could attract so many people to this out-of-the-way place? It is the startling claim of six Croatian youths that, for the past decade, they have communicated almost daily with an apparition that identifies itself as the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The Beginning of the Apparitions
On Wednesday, June 24, 1981, two teenage girls -- Ivanka Ivankovic (15 years old) and Mirjana Dragicevic (16) -- had gone out to a hillside behind their homes to smoke cigarettes. While walking down the rocky slopes of Podbrdo (Pod-bre-do) hill in the late afternoon, Ivanka looked up and saw the luminous figure of a young woman in a grey robe, hovering three feet above the ground. "Look, Mirjana," Ivanka said excitedly, "it's the Gospa" (the Croatian word for Madonna, or Virgin Mary)
...Signs and Wonders
There have also allegedly been various signs and miracles that accompany the already supernatural apparitions in Medjugorje. The most popular is undoubtedly the "Miracle of the Sun" phenomenon. Rene Laurentin, an eminent Marian scholar, stated that "on numerous occasions, thousands have witnessed the sun change colors, spin, become a silver disc, throb and pulsate in the sky, and throw off a rainbow of colors." When I visited Medjugorje in September of 1990, I observed thousands of people looking directly into the sun every day at 5:45 p.m., when the apparition was allegedly taking place.
Most pilgrims claim that part of the miracle is that they are able to observe the sun for several minutes without damaging their eyes. This is not true in everyone's case, however. A recent New England Journal of Medicine discussed people who have suffered serious eye damage from watching the sun in Medjugorje. Because it is happening rather frequently, some doctors are calling it the "Medjugorje affliction."
In addition to the phenomena of the sun, unusual things have reportedly taken place in connection with a large cross at the top of Mount Krizevac, the highest peak in the area. This twenty-foot cement cross, which overlooks Medjugorje, was built in 1933 to commemorate the 1900th year of Christ's death and resurrection. Some pilgrims have testified that they have seen the arms of the cross mysteriously spin. Others say it frequently becomes a column of light more intense than a neon cross. Still others claim that they have seen it disappear before their eyes. It has also been reported that the word "MIR" (the Croatian word for PEACE) has appeared in bright letters in the sky above the cross.
Other signs have been reported, including: rosaries turning a gold or copper color, fires on the hillside with nothing being scorched, images of Jesus and Mary seen in the sky, and numerous claims to physical healings.
Many Catholics who have visited this village, however, say they are most persuaded by the spiritual fruit they see present there. This fruit, in their thinking, is the changed lives of those who visit Medjugorje and are challenged to live the simple but relevant messages given there.

The Catholic Church's Judgment
The happenings in Medjugorje are unique among reported apparitions, if only for their duration. Just what is the Vatican's attitude toward them? The answer to that question remains unclear.
...The Bishops' Conference installed a new commission that has been investigating Medjugorje for the past five years. Their evaluation has progressed slowly, but in late November, 1990, they released this controversial statement:

From the very beginning, the bishops have been following the event of Medjugorje through the local bishop, the bishop's commission and the commission of the bishops' conference of Yugoslavia for Medjugorje. On the basis of studies that have been made to this moment, it cannot be affirmed that supernatural apparitions and revelations are occurring here.[16]

The meaning of this statement is open to interpretation. Opponents of Medjugorje argue that if nothing supernatural has been confirmed after ten years of investigation, then the apparitions are not genuine. They tend to see this statement as leading to a final negative verdict on Medjugorje. Supporters, however, believe that this is not the final word on Medjugorje -- the validity of the apparitions is still an open question. It appears that both sides are still awaiting an official word from the Vatican. Recently, however, Cardinal Ratzinger has issued a reminder to the pilgrims that Medjugorje has not yet been approved by the church, and that it is forbidden for pilgrimages to be sponsored by the church.
...
Legend, Delusion, or Psychosis?
A number of alleged Marian apparitions are based upon very sketchy evidence. As we have seen, the New Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that the apparitions to St. Dominic and the apparition to St. Simon Stock in 1251 are virtually legends. As well, this same encyclopedia points out that the documentary basis for the apparition at Guadalupe, Mexico (1531) is not without problems, though certainly more credible than those associated with St. Dominic and St. Stock. The Catholic church also admits that most apparitions remain unverified, and can probably be explained by natural means. Some are intentionally fraudulent, while others are caused by illness. Modern psychiatry has proposed that religious visions are frequently the result of psychological projection, hysteria, and/or hallucinations. Although an anti-supernatural bias no doubt influences some of these explanations, yet they do seem to fit and adequately describe much visionary phenomena (biblical visions being an obvious exception).

Problems with Medjugorje
There are several problems with the phenomena of Medjugorje, let alone the underlying theology. First, there are some inconsistencies in the visionaries' testimonies. On June 30th, 1981 (the first week of the apparitions), the visionaries reported that the "Gospa" would appear only three more times. This was a definite mistake. Additionally, when the apparitions began, it was stated that there were five secrets. This was later changed to ten. Laurentin has attempted to explain these apparent contradictions, but in the wake of a thousand alleged messages, I am not sure he succeeds...

Report: Vatican cracks down on Medjugorje visionaries ...

www.patheos.com/.../vatican-cracks-down-on-medjugorje-vision...

Patheos

Report: Vatican cracks down on Medjugorje visionaries, prohibits spreading messages in local parish. September 6, 2015 by Deacon Greg Kandra. 

When Did Pope's Infallibility Declared?

Dear friends:

It was July 18, 1870, the First Vatican Council declared Pope's Infallibility.

One of the Roman Church's most gifted historians, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger wrote a long letter in which he said that he could not accept the pope's infallibility "as a Christian, a theologian, a historical student and a citizen." His strong opposition was echoed by several bishops, although all of these others yielded when the church put heavy pressure on them.

Other scholars and about 60,000 Catholic lay-people did not yield. They withdrew from the Roman Church, and called themselves Old Catholics. To them it was a matter of truth. They documented instances when popes, speaking authoritatively, had made mistakes; a couple popes had even been condemned by church councils as heretics.

(For more details, click the link below or read further.)

Pope's Infallibility Declared, Old Catholics Split - Christianity

There was no question how the vote would go. On this day, July 18, 1870, the First Vatican Council declared by an overwhelming majority that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his church should be endowed."

In other words, the pope is "infallible" under certain conditions. The decision was sent to the faithful in a letter titled Pastor aeternus.

The vote may have made sense to the Vatican Council but to others it was not so obvious. Protestants world-wide denied its claim. So did a small percentage of Catholics. To political analysts, the doctrine seemed politically motivated. The ideas of the Roman Church were under attack. Italy had confiscated lands long controlled by the popes. The pope had even fled from the Vatican for a time. To some analysts it seemed that because the church could not assert its supremacy in political matters, it was throwing down a gauntlet in the spiritual realm.

One of the Roman Church's most gifted historians, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger wrote a long letter in which he said that he could not accept the pope's infallibility "as a Christian, a theologian, a historical student and a citizen." His strong opposition was echoed by several bishops, although all of these others yielded when the church put heavy pressure on them.

Other scholars and about 60,000 Catholic lay-people did not yield. They withdrew from the Roman Church, and called themselves Old Catholics. To them it was a matter of truth. They documented instances when popes, speaking authoritatively, had made mistakes; a couple popes had even been condemned by church councils as heretics.

Dollinger never joined the Old Catholics. Nor did he return to the Roman Church. He was urged to do so on his death bed but replied, "Ought I (in obedience to your suggestion) to appear before the Eternal Judge, my conscience burdened with a double perjury?" He went on to add, "I think that what I have written so far will suffice to make clear to you that with such convictions one may stand even on the threshold of eternity in a condition of inner peace and spiritual calm."

The Old Catholics made overtures of friendship toward the Church of England and Orthodox churches. They adopted an episcopal form of government...

Introducing The Information Enigma -- Intelligent Design in a Nutshell

Dear friends:
Here below is a You tube video of  The Information Enigma
Watch it carefully!

Introducing The Information Enigma -- Intelligent Design in a Nutshell

David Klinghoffer October 8, 2015 

Intelligent design, or ID, may be the most misunderstood scientific idea ever. That's why we are delighted today to unveil an easily accessible twenty-minute crystallization of ID's major argument in the form of a beautifully produced video from Discovery Institute, The Information Enigma. I'm proud to have drafted the script, but the stars are philosopher of science Stephen Meyer and molecular biologist Douglas Axe. See it here:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/introducing_the_1099951.html
Click the above link for more explanation.

and simple explanation in the following link

Unlocking the Darwin Debate

...Of course, like digital code on a hard drive, DNA can be corrupted. The most recent iteration of Darwin's theory claims that these corruptions — called mutations — are the engines of evolution. 

But here's the problem: We don't have a single example of a mutation resulting in a net gain of information. Not one...

image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/89482/eric-metaxas.jpg?w=262

image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/89482/eric-metaxas.jpg?w=262

Eric Metaxas is an Evangelical speaker and bestselling author.

As intelligent design theorists have pointed out, unguided, natural processes always degrade information — they never increase it. If life at its most fundamental level is a digital code, then mutations are glitches that, if they accumulate, will eventually kill the organism.

Information is at the heart of life, and our uniform and repeated experience tells us that matter, by itself, never produces information. The only known source capable of producing information is a mind.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/darwin-evolution-dna-science-intelligent-design-148331/#e568gHDuFRfxSSlq.99

Should We Pray to Mary?

Dear friends:
I have found this article tracing the history of promotion of Mary very interesting.

Please click the link for the whole article if you want to read the whole article.

https://www.raptureready.com/rr-catholic.html

Roman Catholicism

The Mary Mystery

Now, before I begin, lest you think that I am 'Catholic bashing', I can assure you, I am not.  Now, before I begin, lest you think that I am Catholic bashing, I assure you that I am not. Nor am I suggesting that those who follow the Catholic faith are, by definition, not saved. Luke tells us in the Book of Acts, verse 17:11, that we are to be Bereans, testing every teaching against Scripture. Paul writes, "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). My point is to merely take an intellectual look at the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and compare them to Scripture, which I consider all authority as the Word of God...

Here is a listing of extra-biblical decrees made over the years by the RCC( Roman Catholic Church).  This article is designed to only focus on what I will call the Mary Mystery,  her ascent in status via the Church of Rome over the years, and what it means to the Vatican today.

From that list, I am going to note the progress made by the RCC to take Mary from her human state to the state of being Mother of the Church.

• 431 AD - Mary Worship began
• 600 - prayers directed to Mary
•  (Ave Maria added in 1508)
• 995 - canonization of saints
• 1854 - immaculate conception of Mary (her sinlessness)
• 1950 - assumption of Mary (she never died)
• 1954 - Mary proclaimed Queen of Heaven
• 1965 - Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church
• 1980 - Mary proclaimed Spouse of the Holy Spirit

Mary's Perpetual Virginhood

"Based on the Protoevangelium of James, (Circa 120 AD), it is written and accepted by the RCC that Joseph was a widower with children from his former marriage.  According to this document, when Mary's birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, like Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary was not able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother, and so she was vowed to perpetual virginity."
( for more details of the development of Mary's being a virgin forever, click the link below)

Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View? 

When Did the Idea of Mary Being a “Virgin Forever” Begin?

The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from a dubious apocryphal book written well after the New Testament. The book is called the Infancy Gospel of James, The Protoevangelium of James, or sometimes simply Protoevangelium, and it is estimated to have been written in the middle part of the second century.

Authoritative New Testament works were those written or affirmed by the apostles (Luke 11:49, 1 Corinthians 12:28,Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 3:5, 2 Peter 3:2). A host of false teachings and books came out after the canonical books. Some were written by well-intentioned Christians, some by Gnostics (thinking they had secret knowledge of God), and others by pagans of the day. Some of these books challenged New Testament teachings while others tried to fill in information

THE PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES IS LIKE OTHER FORGERIES TRYING TO CAPITALIZE ON AN APOSTLE. ...)

Scripture says nothing about Joseph being a widower. Scripture does, however, tell of the siblings of Jesus. Matthew 13:55 names His brothers as James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. Mark 6:3 confirms this and additionally references the sisters of Jesus in the process. Luke 16:6 differentiates between Judas, the brother of Jesus, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume that these men (and women) were not the blood brothers and sisters of Jesus, but merely were stepsiblings from a previous marriage, as the Catholic Church asserts.

Does Scripture address this? Yes, it does. Matthew 27:56 clearly says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is also the mother of James and Joses. Mark 15:40 confirms this, as does Mark 16:1.

So we can see by Scripture that Mary indeed was not a virgin for the duration of her lifetime, since she was the mother of several children besides Jesus.

Mary's Sinless Nature and the Immaculate Conception

The RCC maintains that Mary was sinless throughout her life.  "But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences." ³

What does Scripture say about this?

Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Friend, there is no “out” clause there. The word “all” in this reference is translated from the Greek word, pas (Strong's 3956), which means: “all, all things, every, all men, whosoever, everyone, whole, all manner of, and/or every man.” There is no wiggle room for assumption here. When the Lord said “all,” he meant “all.”

Additionally, Mary confirmed her own sinful nature and need of a Savior as recorded in Luke 1:47.  Scripture is clear on this one as well.

Hebrews 7:26  For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens

Jesus was the only Person to have ever lived a sinless life. To claim that Mary did as well is to say that Christ is “one of” the sinless, not “THE” sinless one. Without Christ's unique, sin-free life, where does that leave His sacrifice? Where does that leave the promise of salvation?

Mary's Position 

Was Mary blessed?  YES!!  Mary was chosen among women to be the vessel who bore the Messiah.  The Bible honors Mary as the mother of Jesus and calls her "blessed...among women" (Luke 1:28) but not above women.  What does this mean to us today?  Nothing.  No offense intended, but Mary's job is done.  

...

The Heavenly Assumption of Mary 

Enoch "walked with God; and he was not, for God took him" (Gen. 5:24). He was translated so as not to see death (Heb. 11:5). Elijah was taken to Heaven in a fiery chariot (2 Chron. 2:1-13).

Scripture is silent about the death of Mary.   This is where the RCC fills in the gap.

"The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her.  Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That's not correct, Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn't do it under her own power."⁴

...Nothing backs up this “doctrine” (*in the scripture) except that the Catholic Church says it’s so. Since the Catholic Church believes it can't err, the teaching is held to be true by default.

Prayers to Mary

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and in the hour of our death. Amen.

Catholicism teaches that Christ is a stern, wrathful judge who cannot be approached by sinners.  It teaches that Mary, on the other hand, is a tender, understanding, merciful intercessor who is more sympathetic and compassionate than the Lord and will plead our case to Him with the forceful persuasion of a loving mother.

The practice of petitioning Marian intercession is to pray to Mary, asking her to intercede as the mediatrix between man and God.

...

The RCC makes no distinction between intercession and mediation.   Intercession is praying to the Father for another, just as one would pray for the healing of a friend.  Mediation on the other hand, is the practice of believing your prayers are heard only through another - a mediator or mediatrix.

Additionally, no distinction is made between the living and the dead. The RCC claims that the dead are in Heaven with the Lord and therefore can hear our prayers and intercede with the Father on our behalf. We have already documented that the RCC agrees that Mary did indeed die (although in 1950, the wording was changed to say "her earthly life was completed").

What does Scripture tell us about communicating with the dead?

Deuteronomy 18:10-12: There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.  For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.

Wow. These are harsh words from the Lord. Communicating with the dead is an abomination?

Let's turn back to Scripture and see if Jesus weighs in at all on the subject of prayer:

Matthew 6:7-8: And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.   Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.

Apparently, the message that Jesus was trying to get across is that we don't have to chant things over and over as if the Lord is not listening to us. I guess you could say that not only is it an issue of quantity vs. quality, but additionally it is written that the Lord knows our needs, meaning that we don't need for anyone who predeceased us to petition the Lord on our behalf.

...

One other way of looking at this is to consider your view of God. Ask yourself the following questions:

1.  Is God big enough to hear my prayers, or does He need a "switchboard" to help Him?
2.  Does God care so little about me that He will only listen to the requests of people appointed by the Catholic Church and not me directly?
3.  If giving the power of an audience with the Father is, as the RCC maintains, Mary's “call,” then what if she is too busy or deems me too unimportant?

God is omnipotent.  Mary is not.  She was a mere mortal, just as the rest of us today.

The Queen of Heaven?

"Since Mary is Jesus' mother, the fact that she is also the Mother of God is inescapable, for if Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God."⁶

This sounds innocent enough, right? Well, let’s look again to Scripture.

John 1:1, 14: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

Rev 1:8: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

You see, Jesus was God before Mary was even born.  Mary is the vessel that produced the Messiah from the line of David, she is not the Mother of God.

Now, assuming that you disagree with me and you do feel that Mary was the mother of God, how far are you willing to take it? In 1954, Mary was elevated to Queen of Heaven. In 1965, she was named Mother of the Church. Quite a promotion, eh?

...

36. Now, in the accomplishing of this work of redemption, the Blessed Virgin Mary was most closely associated with Christ; and so it is fitting to sing in the sacred liturgy: "Near the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ there stood, sorrowful, the Blessed Mary, Queen of Heaven and Queen of the World."

Does Scripture address this? The 44th chapter of the Book of Jeremiah is dedicated to the subject of there being a "Queen of Heaven," past or present and the Lord's opinion of that particular classification.

In addition to her titles of "Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" Mary is also known as the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit." 

Citing Prudentius in his February 2, 1974 writing, Apostolic Exhortation For the Right Ordering and Development of Devotion To the Blessed Virgin Mary (full text here), Pope Paul VI proclaims this marital relationship between the Holy Spirit and Mary, "The unwed Virgin espoused the Spirit." And from the writing of Pope John Paul II,On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist, penned on February 24, 1980 (full text here), we have:

"In order that this unity and the constant and systematic collaboration which leads to it may be perseveringly continued, I beg on my knees that, through the intercession of Mary, holy spouse of the Holy Spirit and Mother of the Church, we may all receive the light of the Holy Spirit."

How far will the RCC go in the promotion of this woman's role? Would you believe me if I told you that a movement is afoot to elevate her once again to being the sinless, co-redemptrix of salvation? Given the comments from Pope Pius XII above, it shouldn't surprise you.

Bottom Line

Peter confirmed that Jesus is the rock on which the Church should be built, not himself and not the Catholic (or any other) Church. Matthew, Mark and Luke confirmed that Mary was not only the mother of Jesus, but of several other children as well. Mary confirmed that she herself was a sinner in need of a Savior.

Friend,  Mary did not ask for this attention.  Better yet, I feel quite comfortable in saying that Mary would be saddened and ashamed that people are placing so much undue importance on her role in this day and age.  Mary had a role to fill and she obeyed the Lord and filled that role.  Her job is now done.  Let her rest in peace.   

The Mary Mystery?  I am sure that she is as bewildered by all of this as I am.

Also click the link below for the crown of Mary.

Update on the Fifth Marian Dogma - Mother of All Peoples

www.motherofallpeoples.com/2015/.../update-on-the-fifth-marian-dogm...

Sep 4, 2015 - In April, 2013, a petition for the Fifth Marian Dogma from 22 Archbishops from 16 developing nations was presented to Pope Francis; In July, ...